Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Passport Ceased to Be a Negotiable Instrument - Several sources indicate that once a negotiable instrument, such as a cheque, ceases to be negotiable—either due to legal discharge, alteration, or expiry—it cannot be subject to proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, including criminal proceedings under Section 138. For example, ["- Supreme Court"] states, the instrument which was drawn on Vijaya Bank looses the identity as a cheque once the bank ceases to exist or the instrument is discharged, thereby losing its negotiability. Similarly, ["Thummuru Sita Ramireddy, S/o. Seshi Reddy vs Kondamadugula Siva Parvathi, W/o. Ravindra Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"] and [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_1895_13) emphasize that a discharged or non-negotiable instrument cannot be the basis for criminal or civil proceedings under the Act.
Legal Proceedings and the Status of the Instrument - The act of discharging a negotiable instrument (e.g., by payment or cancellation) results in it losing its negotiable character, making it ineligible for prosecution under Section 138. The promissory note being in my opinion discharged and not negotiable... ceased to be negotiable [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_1895_13). Additionally, if the instrument is altered (e.g., words like 'bearer' are scored off), it may no longer qualify as a negotiable instrument, thus affecting the jurisdiction and applicability of the Act ["Muthoottu Chitty Fund VS Mrs Susy Baby - Kerala"], ["VELUCHANDRAN vs VILASINI AMMA - Kerala"].
Jurisdiction and Presumptions - The jurisdiction for initiating proceedings under Section 138 has been amended (notably by the 2015 Ordinance) to be where the cheque is presented for encashment ["Continental Construction Co. VS Charanjit Kochhar - Jammu and Kashmir"]. Moreover, the law presumes that a negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration until proven otherwise ["Veluchandran, Akkaravarathu Veedu VS Vilasini Amma W/o Late Venugopalan Nair - Kerala"], ["Muthoottu Chitty Fund v. Lukose - Kerala"]. However, if the instrument ceases to be negotiable, these presumptions and proceedings become invalid.
Conclusion - A passport or any negotiable instrument cannot be ceased in proceedings; rather, the instrument itself must be legally discharged, altered, or rendered non-negotiable. Once it loses its negotiable character, criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not maintainable. The main points are supported by multiple references, including ["- Supreme Court"], ["Thummuru Sita Ramireddy, S/o. Seshi Reddy vs Kondamadugula Siva Parvathi, W/o. Ravindra Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"], and [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_1895_13).
References:- ["md. zahirul islam vs the state - Supreme Court"]- ["Md. Jahangiir Alam vs The State and another - Supreme Court"]- ["- Supreme Court"]- ["Thummuru Sita Ramireddy, S/o. Seshi Reddy vs Kondamadugula Siva Parvathi, W/o. Ravindra Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Muthoottu Chitty Fund VS Mrs Susy Baby - Kerala"]- ["VELUCHANDRAN vs VILASINI AMMA - Kerala"]- ["Muthoottu Chitty Fund v. Lukose - Kerala"]- ["Veluchandran, Akkaravarathu Veedu VS Vilasini Amma W/o Late Venugopalan Nair - Kerala"]- ["Continental Construction Co. VS Charanjit Kochhar - Jammu and Kashmir"]
In the high-stakes world of financial disputes, cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) are commonplace. But what happens when authorities attempt to seize a passport during such proceedings? Many individuals facing these charges wonder: whether passport can be ceased in negotiable instrument act proceedings? This question strikes at the heart of personal rights and legal boundaries.
This blog post breaks down the legal position, drawing from key statutes and court rulings. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Generally, a passport cannot be seized or confiscated in proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The authority for impounding passports is strictly governed by the Passports Act, 1967, which operates independently of NI Act cases. Arockia Jeyabalan VS Regional Passport Officer - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 3191
Key points include:- Passport impoundment requires explicit procedures under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, typically involving the Regional Passport Officer (RPO).- Police or courts handling NI Act matters lack inherent power to seize passports without following these rules.- Unauthorized seizures by law enforcement are typically deemed illegal. State Of W. B. VS Sujit Kumar Rana - 2004 5 Supreme 161
This distinction protects travelers and ensures that financial disputes don't arbitrarily restrict international mobility.
Section 10(3) of the Passports Act empowers the RPO to impound a passport in specific scenarios, such as when a charge sheet is filed in serious criminal cases or other defined conditions. However, routine NI Act proceedings—like those for dishonored cheques—do not trigger this provision automatically.
The Act emphasizes procedural safeguards: The seizure or impoundment of a passport by police without proper authority or outside the statutory framework is illegal. Arockia Jeyabalan VS Regional Passport Officer - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 3191 Police cannot act unilaterally; they must route requests through the designated passport authority.
Courts have consistently ruled against unauthorized passport seizures. In a pivotal case, the court held that the police had no authority to seize the passport, and the impounding action was unlawful. Arockia Jeyabalan VS Regional Passport Officer - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 3191 The bench directed the RPO to return the document, underscoring that only statutory procedures under the Passports Act validate such actions.
Similarly, related jurisprudence illustrates that seizures must align with specific laws. For instance, confiscation under other statutes like the Indian Forest Act requires dedicated provisions, not general police powers. State Of W. B. VS Sujit Kumar Rana - 2004 5 Supreme 161 This principle extends to NI Act scenarios, where no such empowerment exists.
The NI Act primarily addresses dishonor of cheques, imposing criminal liability under Section 138 for insufficient funds or similar issues. Proceedings often involve complaints, legal notices, and trials, but no section authorizes passport seizure.
To contextualize:- Legal Notice Requirements: A valid notice under Section 138 is mandatory, demanding payment within 15 days. Courts have quashed cases where notices were ominous or failed to specify amounts accurately, as in cases stressing that service of a valid legal notice... is mandatory. Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel VS Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 698SHREE CORPORATION VS ANILBHAI PURANBHAI BANSAL - DIRECTOR FOR & BEHALF OF - 2018 Supreme(Guj) 613- Director Liability: Non-executive directors cannot be vicariously liable without proof of involvement. Non-executive directors cannot be held liable under the Negotiable Instrument Act for dishonored cheques if not proven responsible for company operations. MANOJ @ MIKE AMBALAL SHAH vs STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8015- Drawer-Specific Liability: Only the cheque drawer faces Section 138 charges; others, like non-drawers implicated in conspiracy, are often discharged. A person who is not the drawer of a cheque cannot be made an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. R. Padmapriya VS C. Krishnakumar - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 775
These elements highlight NI Act's focus on financial accountability, not travel restrictions. Integrating cases like JASBEER KAUR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and Mohammad Jahangir Alam vs The State - 2024 Supreme(BD)(SC) 8514, which discuss Section 138 filings, reinforces that proceedings remain confined to monetary remedies, without passport-related powers.
Further, issues like material alterations (Section 87) or part-payments (Section 56) are handled through endorsements or adjusted demands, not by impounding documents. Neyaz Ahmad VS State of Jharkhand - 2013 Supreme(Jhk) 836Mahendra Singh VS Wealth-tax Officer
While the rule is clear, exceptions may apply:- If NI Act proceedings escalate to trigger Passports Act conditions (e.g., a charge sheet in a linked serious offense), the RPO could intervene.- Courts may direct impoundment via proper channels, but not directly under NI Act.
The referenced case clarifies: passport impoundment must follow the statutory procedures under the Passports Act, and police cannot act unilaterally outside this framework. Arockia Jeyabalan VS Regional Passport Officer - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 3191
No provided sources indicate NI Act-specific passport provisions, solidifying the general prohibition. VAYNA REYNA REENA PERIA KURPEN CHITTY vs RAVENA MANA SHOONA VEERAPPA CHITTY
If your passport is seized unlawfully:- Approach the High Court or relevant authority for immediate relief.- Demand adherence to Passports Act procedures.- In cheque bounce defenses, focus on notice validity, presumptions under Section 139, and role-specific liabilities.
Authorities should:- Stick to NI Act remedies like fines or imprisonment.- Route any passport concerns through the RPO.
In conclusion, while Section 138 proceedings can be stressful, they typically do not extend to passport confiscation. Understanding these boundaries empowers you in financial legal battles. Always consult a legal expert for tailored guidance.
References:- Arockia Jeyabalan VS Regional Passport Officer - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 3191: Police lack authority; follow Passports Act.- State Of W. B. VS Sujit Kumar Rana - 2004 5 Supreme 161: Seizures need specific statutes.- Additional NI Act contexts: MANOJ @ MIKE AMBALAL SHAH vs STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8015, Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel VS Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 698, R. Padmapriya VS C. Krishnakumar - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 775, and others cited inline.
#ChequeBounce #PassportSeizure #NIAct
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. ... Instrument Act, 1881. ... On compliance of all legal requirements and procedure the complainant filed this case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. ... Instrument Act, 1881 he was not legally competent to bring and maintain this case. ... Case No.321 of 2020 under Sections 138/140 of the Negotiable Instru....
Instrument Act, 1881. ... Instrument Act, 1881 alleging inter alia that the accused- petitioner has Instrument Act, Act, 1881,of 2015 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument span style="font-size:16pt; letter-spacing
Instrument Act. ... Case No.779 of 2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, now pending before Section 9 of the Negotiable Instrument Act provides that –‗‗ Holder in due course‘‘ means any person who for consideration ... Therefore, the statutory requirements as provided in sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 have not Act have not beenspan ....
As the fundamental instrument on which the complaint under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act is filed has lost its identity as a valid cheque as on the date of its presentation. The criminal proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act also cannot lie. ... Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows ; 13.“Negotiable instrument”.—3 [(1) A “negotiable instrument” means a ....
with the proceedings, under sections 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. ... under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, itself. ... under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which was instituted prior to the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument#HL_END....
Facts in short are that the opposite party complainant filed above case through his constituted attorney under Section 138 of the Negotiable
it, it had ceased to be negotiable and Koh Sek Quee acquired no right of action on the instrument. ... held that it had ceased to be negotiable. ... Therefore, the note was discharged under 59(3), and being discharged it ceased to be negotiable under 36. The transaction which took place subsequently appears to me to have amounted to a sale of a valueless non-negotiable note. ... The result is that under section 59(3) of the Act by s....
it, it had ceased to be negotiable and Koh Sek Quee acquired no right of action on the instrument. ... of the same, he held that it had ceased to be negotiable. ... Therefore, the note was discharged under 59(3), and being discharged it ceased to be negotiable under 36. The transaction which took place subsequently appears to me to have amounted to a sale of a valueless non-negotiable note. ... The result is that under section 59(3) of the ....
In these two decisions, the provisions of the Public Debt Act and the Negotiable Instrument Act were not considered. ... Under section 60 of the Negotiable Instrument Act read with section 13 thereof a promissory note payable to order, which is a negotiable instrument can be negotiated until payment or satisfaction thereof by the maker of the same at or after maturity, but not after such payment or satisfaction. ... A Nego....
Instrument Act for dishonour of the cheques which were issued by the original accused No.1 Company and/or for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, alleged to have been committed by the original circumstances, accused No.1 Company. ... Nainesh Arvindbhai Chitaniya, issued process against all the accused in the offence punishable under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner herein is accused No.1....
In fact, Section 56 of Negotiable Instrument Act specifically provides for an endorsement on a Negotiable Instrument, in case of part-payment and the instrument can thereafter be negotiated for the balance amount. But, this can easily be avoided by payee of the cheque, either by taking the cheque of the reduced amount from the drawer or by making an endorsement on the cheque acknowledging the part payment received by him and then presenting the cheque for encashment of only the balance amount due and payable to him. It would, therefore, be open to the payee of the cheque to....
But, this can easily be avoided by payee of the cheque, either by taking the cheque of the reduced amount from the drawer or by making an endorsement on the cheque acknowledging the part payment received by him and then presenting the cheque for encashment of only the balance amount due and payable to him. It would, therefore, be open to the payee of the cheque to present the cheque for payment of only that much amount which is due to him after giving credit for the part-payment made after issuance of cheque. In fact, Section 56 of Negotiable Instrument Act specifically provides fo....
7. The said provision does speak about the effect of material alteration but what is the material alteration, it has not been defined under the Act. However, from other provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, one can have an idea as to when there would be material alteration of a negotiable instrument.
8. The statutory notice given under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be proceeded only under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. No doubt, it is true that the complaint speaks about the offence of 120(B) read with 420 I.P.C and 120(B) I.P.C. read with 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. If it is so, the petitioner has not produced any other document to show that a complaint was given to police under Section 120(B) and 420 I.P.C for the alleged conspiracy had in between the petitioner and A1.
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
