Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases where the accused has already paid or made arrangements for payment, courts may consider such facts during sentencing or in default proceedings, but the primary trigger remains the dishonour of the cheque and failure to pay after demand ["SUBAIR A.V. vs M/S.KOYENCO MOBIKES - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["SUBAIR A.V. vs M/S.KOYENCO MOBIKES - Kerala"]- ["S. Balakrishna Prabhu VS V. Indira, W/o. Ratnakara Prabhu - Kerala"]- ["Basheer v. T. N. Radhakrishnan - Kerala"]- ["Sharan P. Khanna v. Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. and Another - Bombay"]
In the world of business transactions, cheques are a common payment method, but what happens when a cheque is issued or paid to a third party and it bounces? A frequent question arises: Payment made to third party. Convicted in NI Act. Does making a payment to a third party absolve the drawer from liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act)? This blog post dives deep into this issue, drawing from key judicial precedents to clarify when convictions hold and when they may not.
Cheque bounce cases under Section 138 are quasi-criminal in nature, aimed at ensuring trust in negotiable instruments. However, courts have consistently held that liability hinges on a legally enforceable debt or liability at the time of issuing the cheque. Payments to third parties complicate this, but they do not automatically shield the drawer. Let's break it down.
Section 138 punishes the dishonour of a cheque due to insufficient funds or exceeding arrangements, provided a demand notice is issued and payment is not made within 15 days. The offence targets the drawer of the cheque, presuming under Sections 118 and 139 that it was issued for a legally enforceable debt unless rebutted.
However, Payment to a third party under the Negotiable Instruments Act generally does not establish a legally enforceable liability of the drawer of the cheque unless the third party has a direct and recognized liability to the payee or the drawer. The liability primarily rests with the drawer, and third-party payments do not automatically trigger or discharge Section 138 liability without specific conditions. KALYANI REFINERIES LIMITED VS BANARAS State BANK LIMITED - 1999 0 Supreme(AP) 884
The core principle is clear: It is the drawer of cheque who can be liable for offence u/S.138 of N.I Act and not payee of cheque. Criminal liability attaches to the drawer—the person with the enforceable debt to the payee—not third parties. KALYANI REFINERIES LIMITED VS BANARAS State BANK LIMITED - 1999 0 Supreme(AP) 884
In cases where cheques are issued by third parties to discharge the drawer's liability, courts scrutinize if the third party had a direct contractual relationship with the payee. For instance, if a third party issues a cheque not drawn in their favor or without privity, no offence arises against the original drawer. Cheques issued by third parties in discharge of liabilities of the drawer may not create criminal liability against the drawer unless the third party has a legally enforceable liability to the payee. KALYANI REFINERIES LIMITED VS BANARAS State BANK LIMITED - 1999 0 Supreme(AP) 884
A landmark view: for a cheque signed by a third person, respondents-accused cannot be put to trial. The complaint was dismissed against the accused who was not the signatory or primarily liable. Lakhwinder Singh VS Welkin Sales & Marketing - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 602
In Lakhwinder Singh VS Welkin Sales & Marketing - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 602, a third party issued a cheque to discharge another's liability, but the court ruled the complaint not maintainable against the non-signatory accused. This underscores that mere third-party involvement does not impute criminal liability without enforceable privity.
Similarly, KALYANI REFINERIES LIMITED VS BANARAS State BANK LIMITED - 1999 0 Supreme(AP) 884 emphasizes: third-party cheques do not create privity or criminal liability unless the third party holds a recognized legal obligation to the payee.
Payments to third parties often intersect with cheques issued as security or for advance payments. If a cheque is issued as security or for a purpose other than discharging a debt or liability, dishonour may not attract Section 138. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. VS Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 3 Supreme 8
This aligns with broader jurisprudence. In a related ruling, cheques towards refund of security deposit were not fully enforceable where the tenant overstayed without paying rent, reducing liability. The court limited compensation, quashing higher awards. M. S. Nagabhushan VS D. S. Nagaraja - 2025 3 Supreme 222
Other precedents reinforce that legally enforceable debt is pivotal, even in third-party scenarios:
Illegal Contracts Void Liability: If underlying payments involve illegal considerations, like securing employment through unlawful means, no enforceable debt exists. An illegal contract voids any associated debt, thus a cheque issued under such a contract does not constitute a legally enforceable liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Bhavsar Vinodkumar Babulal VS State Of Gujarat - 2023 Supreme(Guj) 1356
Security Cheques: A cheque issued as security for a third-party transaction (e.g., between accused's wife and complainant) does not presume debt. Courts upheld convictions but added interest for justice. Sathyan VS Yousu - 2006 Supreme(Ker) 592
Rebutting Presumption: In loan disputes with third-party elements, successful rebuttal of debt presumption leads to acquittal. The appellate court acquitted where evidence showed no enforceable loan. ASHOK BAUGH VS KAMAL BAUGH - 2015 Supreme(Del) 2643
Procedural Aspects: Even in convictions, settlements and Section 148 deposits (20% compensation) offer relief, but default revives liability. Shrikant Verma VS State Of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 669
These cases illustrate that third-party payments must be tied to a valid, enforceable debt; otherwise, convictions falter.
While third-party payments generally do not implicate the drawer, exceptions apply:- If the third party acts as an agent with direct liability to the payee, proceedings may hold.- Cheques in course of business transactions creating enforceable obligations can trigger Section 138.- Mere issuance of a cheque to a third party does not automatically invoke Section 138 unless the third party is also a drawer with a valid liability.
Conversely:- No liability for security cheques or non-debt purposes. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. VS Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 3 Supreme 8- Parallel proceedings (e.g., SARFAESI Act) allow compensation adjustments. Ramananda Sengupta VS State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1197Ramananda Sengupta VS State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 760
To navigate third-party payment risks:- Document Transactions: Clearly state if payments to third parties discharge debts; obtain receipts linking to the payee.- Scrutinize Cheques: In disputes, verify if the drawer had enforceable liability—examine contracts, not just endorsements.- Legal Notices: Target the primary drawer; avoid pursuing non-signatories without privity.- Appeal Strategies: Leverage Section 148 for interim relief via 20% deposits during appeals. Ramesh Kakar vs Nitin Gupta - 2025 Supreme(Del) 187- Avoid Dismissals: Ensure presence in proceedings to prevent Section 256 dismissals. SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LIMITED) THRO JAKHARIA PRITESH MUKESHBHAI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 609
Payments to third parties do not inherently protect against Section 138 convictions under the NI Act. Liability remains with the drawer unless the third party lacks direct enforceable ties to the payee. Key takeaways:- Focus on legally enforceable debt—presumed but rebuttable.- Third-party cheques rarely impute liability without privity. Lakhwinder Singh VS Welkin Sales & Marketing - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 602KALYANI REFINERIES LIMITED VS BANARAS State BANK LIMITED - 1999 0 Supreme(AP) 884- Security or advance cheques often escape Section 138. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. VS Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 3 Supreme 8
This analysis draws from cited judgments and is for informational purposes only. Legal outcomes depend on specific facts; consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your situation. Stay compliant to safeguard your transactions.
References:- KALYANI REFINERIES LIMITED VS BANARAS State BANK LIMITED - 1999 0 Supreme(AP) 884: Drawer vs. third-party liability.- Lakhwinder Singh VS Welkin Sales & Marketing - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 602: Non-maintainability against third-party signatories.- Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. VS Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 3 Supreme 8: Security cheques exception.- Additional insights from M. S. Nagabhushan VS D. S. Nagaraja - 2025 3 Supreme 222, Bhavsar Vinodkumar Babulal VS State Of Gujarat - 2023 Supreme(Guj) 1356, Sathyan VS Yousu - 2006 Supreme(Ker) 592, ASHOK BAUGH VS KAMAL BAUGH - 2015 Supreme(Del) 2643, Shrikant Verma VS State Of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 669, Ramananda Sengupta VS State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1197, Ramananda Sengupta VS State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 760, Ramesh Kakar vs Nitin Gupta - 2025 Supreme(Del) 187, [SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LIMITED) THRO JAKHARIA PRITESH MUKESHBHAI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 609).
#NIACT, #Section138, #ChequeBounce
Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted them thereunder. The first accused firm was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The second accused and the petitioner herein were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.10,00,000/- each. ... Three third party documents were marked as Exts.X1 to X3. After evaluating the aforesaid evidence and hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of commission of offence under Section 138 of the Section 138 of the N.I....
Though a lawyer notice was issued demanding payment, the accused failed to make the payment and hence the complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed. In C.C.Nos.647 of 2002, 649 of 2002 and 648 of 2002 the allegation is the same. ... Indian Acrylic Ltd, (2000) 1 SCC 1 which held that the NI Act does not contain a condition that prosecution of the company is sine qua non for prosecution of the other persons who falls within the second and third category mentioned in S....
The Act of 1914 which was described as "An Act to diminish the number of cases committed summarily to prison ", Made it obligatory to allow at least seven days for the payment of a fine except for very special reasons which must be stated in the warrant of commitment. ... A Departmental Committee was accordingly appointed to investigate the question, and on its recommendation the Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Act, 1935, was passed. This Act introduced substantial amendments....
The petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court and directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,17,50,000/- as compensation. ... In Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another (supra), appellant No.2 had made a statement during the pendency of the Criminal Complaint itself that he was ready to make the payment of the cheque amount but the complainant had declined to accept the Demand Draft whereas ... Then, in Roop Lal (supra), the observations were made while dealing with the reference pertaining to the industrial dispu....
In respect of the opposite party proceeding against the petitioner under two acts that is SARFAESI Act and N.I. Act., the finding again of the Learned Magistrate is in accordance with law. 27. ... The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court made a mistake that before condoning the delay of 10 days in filing of the case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the Trial Court took cognizance and issued notice to the accused person which is contrary to Section 142 of the N.I. Act. ... It is....
In respect of the opposite party proceeding against the petitioner under two acts that is SARFAESI Act and N.I. Act., the finding again of the Learned Magistrate is in accordance with law. 27. ... The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court made a mistake that before condoning the delay of 10 days in filing of the case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the Trial Court took cognizance and issued notice to the accused person which is contrary to Section 142 of the N.I. Act. ... It i....
Section-23 of the Indian CONTRACT ACT provides that any payment of money, which was made by the complainant to the accused was not lawful, then the accused is not binding to the contract. ... convicted the respondent – accused from the charges. ... Section-138 of the N.I. ... In such a cases, neither party is a victim of contract, both have voluntarily and free consent join the contract. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the complainant cannot take the shelter of the law for th....
When the cheque is dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds etc., and payment is not made despite service of notice of demand, as insisted by Sec.138 of the N.I. ... No payment was made. The complainant examined him self as P.W.1 and proved Exts.P-1 to P-5. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence. He proved Exts.D-1 & D-2. ... It will be proper straightaway to refer to Section 80 of the N.I. Act which deals with payment of interest when no rate of inte....
Negotiable Instruments Act is, to a certain extent, of quasi civil nature. The criminal liability in connection with the aforesaid offence would arise due to the inability of the debtor to make payment of the amount, which he is indebted to pay the creditor. ... He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the a href="./.. ... It is further submitted that the petitioner may be given a period of three months time for making payment of the balance amount of....
That payment was made by set off against the earnest money in respect of that property. ... Prima facie, it appears that to the knowledge and belief of the petitioner he did not want to act upon his representation that the cheque would be honoured and the payment of money would be made to the res - pondent and inspite of that, he made a false representation to that effect and made the respondent ... In spite of service of notice, payment was not #HL_....
4. Subsequently, the petitioner prayed for an extension of time for the deposit of 20% compensation amount. The extension of 30 days time to deposit the said amount was granted by the learned ASJ by order dated 14.11.2024. 3. By impugned order dated 01.10.2024, the learned ASJ, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, suspended the operation of the order on sentence subject to deposit of 20% of the fine amount in the form of FDR. 2. The petitioner was convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’) by judgment dated 30.07.2024. Furthe....
2.2 The learned Trial Court was pleased to consider documents produced and took cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and issue summons to the accused. 2.3 The summons has not been served since the accused was not residing at the given address and the learned Trial Court had issued warrant which was duly executed but accused did not remain present and as the matter was pending since long and the complainant did not make attempts to proceed further, by an order dated 15.07.2024, the learned Trial Court was pleased to pass an order under Section 256 of The Code of Criminal....
3,00,000/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the cheques till realisation thereof. It was directed that out of the said fine amount, the respondent- complainant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs. 5. The respondent-complainant presented the above cheques with his bank and the same came to be dishonoured with the endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereupon, the respondent- complainant filed four separate complaints6[Criminal Complaint Nos. 26639 of 2015, 1235 of 2016, 5198 of 2016 and 11151 of 2016] against the appella....
Significantly enough the notice in question having been served on 23rd September, 2008 and the complaint was filed on 07th October, 2008 i.e. before expiry of stipulated period of fifteen days. A notice calling upon the respondent-drawer of the cheque to pay the amount covered by the cheques was issued and duly served upon the respondent as required under Section 138(C) of the N.I.Act. No payment was, however, made by the accused till 07th October, 2008 when a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act was filed before the Magistrate.
As a result thereof, the Respondent was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of a period of 9 months and was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 15 Lacs i.e. double the cheque amount to the petitioner/complainant and in default of such payment, to further suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
