Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
References:- ["Susanta Kumar Moharana VS Ramesh Kumar Bhatta - Orissa"]- ["G. Ekantappa VS State of Karnataka - Madras"]- ["Indra Kumar Patodia VS Reliance Industries Ltd. - Rajasthan"]- ["K. G. Sharma VS Pratap Autowheels - Rajasthan"]- ["N. Venkata Sivaram Prasad VS Rajeswari Constructions - Madras"]- ["Ashok Kumar Gupta VS Anil Gupta - Delhi"]- ["Sha Wallace and Company Limited Madras VS Sri Venkateswarlu Bon Mill Santhamangulur represented by its Managing Partner, Shaik Lal Ahmed - 1978 0 Supreme(AP) 123"]- ["N. Harihara Iyer VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"]- ["Narayan Shivdas Kadam VS Shriram Transport Finance Co. - Bombay"]- ["Lakshmi Agencies, Vijayawada Rep. by its Partner B. Sudhakar VS State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["E. K. Jaleel VS State of Kerala - Kerala"]- ["Susanta Kumar Moharana VS Ramesh Kumar Bhatta - Orissa"]
In the fast-paced world of commercial transactions, cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) are commonplace. But a critical procedural question often arises: whether recording reasons are necessary for taking cognizance for offence under sec 138 of NI act? This issue strikes at the heart of judicial process fairness and efficiency.
If you're a business owner facing a cheque dishonour complaint, a lawyer defending a client, or simply curious about criminal procedure in NI Act matters, understanding this can make all the difference. This post breaks down the legal position, drawing from key judgments and statutory provisions. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
'Taking cognizance' means the court applies its mind to the complaint and decides to initiate judicial proceedings. Section 142 of the NI Act strictly governs this: no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque Rekha Sharad Ushir VS Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. - 2025 3 Supreme 683.
This provision emphasizes procedural prerequisites like a written complaint but is silent on mandating detailed reasons in the court's order. The focus is on ensuring the complaint meets timelines and formalities, such as filing within one month of the cause of action (expiry of 15 days from notice receipt) Kuldeep Shrivastava VS Ramesh Chandra.
While detailed reasons aren't explicitly required, courts must demonstrate they've applied their mind to the facts. As held in a pivotal ruling, taking cognizance would mean the action taken by the Court for initiating judicial proceedings against the offender, emphasizing application of mind but not requiring reasons to be recorded explicitly A. V. R. Murthy VS Nunna Venkata Ravanamma - 2010 0 Supreme(AP) 292.
Similarly, mere presentation of the complaint in the Court cannot be held to mean, that its cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate—cognizance occurs only upon application of mind Narsingh Das Tapadia VS Goverdhan Das Partani - 2000 6 Supreme 205. This prevents mechanical issuance of summons without scrutiny.
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, have consistently clarified that while transparency is ideal, it's not statutorily mandatory. In cheque dishonour cases, the court presumes dishonour upon production of the bank's slip or memo Susanta Kumar Moharana VS Ramesh Kumar Bhatta - Dishonour Of Cheque (2005). The order need only reflect satisfaction with a prima facie case.
In one case, the Magistrate was directed to proceed under Section 200 CrPC after ensuring procedural adherence, highlighting that cognizance follows proper complaint scrutiny Bandi Pandu VS Kola Balaji Varma - 2002 Supreme(AP) 929.
Though not mandatory, cryptic orders raise red flags. Higher courts may intervene if application of mind is doubtful:
For instance, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance... unless the original dishonoured cheque was produced/filed when the complaint was filed R. Sarathkumar VS The Inspector of Police, C-9, Police Station, Neelankarai, Cheenai - 2004 Supreme(Mad) 393. This underscores procedural rigor over verbose reasoning.
Judgments stress that Section 142 provides the 'manner of taking cognizance,' prioritizing substance over form Kuldeep Shrivastava VS Ramesh Chandra.
For payees: File robust complaints with all documents to facilitate smooth cognizance. For drawers: Challenge via process abuse arguments if procedures falter, like missing originals or limitation breaches.
Related issues include:- Multiple Complaints: Second complaints aren't protest petitions if allegations differ Bandi Pandu VS Kola Balaji Varma - 2002 Supreme(AP) 929.- Presumptions: Section 139 presumes debt/ liability, rebuttable at trial—not at cognizance stage Taramanidevi Purushottamdasji Mahota VS State of Gujarat - 2014 Supreme(Guj) 200.- Attorney Filings: PoA holders can prosecute if empowered, preventing illusory remedies Rajan George VS State of Kerala - 1998 Supreme(Mad) 963.
In conclusion, while recording reasons isn't obligatory under the NI Act or CrPC, ensuring judicial mind application is paramount. This balances efficiency in high-volume cheque cases with due process. Stay informed, document meticulously, and seek professional guidance to navigate these waters effectively.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and interpretations may vary by jurisdiction and facts.
#Section138, #NIACT, #ChequeBounce
B.N.Mohanty, learned counsel for Opp. party, on the other hand, submitted that in view of Sections 145 and 146 of the N.I.Act, recording of statement of the complainant under Sec. 200, Cr.P.C. is not mandatory and that the existence of prima facie case for the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act can ... Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of cognizance is unsustainable as the statement of the complainant re....
Sec.142 of the Act imposes certain restrictions in taking cognizance of an offence under Sec.138 of the Act. ... It is for the drawee to decide as to whether a prosecution for an offence under Sec.138 of the Act be initiated or not. ... Sec.142 of the Act which does not constitute any ingredient of the offence#HL_END....
The Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under Sec. 138, Negotiable Instruments Act unless the original dishonoured cheque was produced/filed when the complaint was filed. ... Filing of the original-dishonoured cheque is a sine-qua-non for taking a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act on to the file. ... Therefore, in all cases under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments#HL_END....
(supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the aspect of rejection of compounding of an offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. ... Offence under Sec. 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on the accused in view of presumption under Sec. 139 but the standard of such proof is "preponderance of probabilities". ... Sec. 143 of the Act has been introduced in the year 2002 as a st....
Sahasranaman with regard to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has no basis as it is undisputed that the taking of cognizance of offence under the said Section has to precede the taking of sworn statement of the complainant and that cognizance should precede the recording of the sworn statement ... debarred to take the cognizance of the offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable #H....
The requirement of recording reasons which is specifically incorporated in Section 203 does not find place in Section 202. ... In this backdrop, it becomes necessary now to advert to an order dated 16 April 2021 of a Constitution Bench in Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881. ... Section 204 which deals with the issuance of process stipulates that if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there ....
C. , by recording the sworn statement and to take a decision in regard to taking cognizance, etc. ... I. Act, that only one cause of action can be taken as the basis for filing the complaint under Sec. 138 of the N. I. Act for dishonour of cheques. ... Ltd. as follows: as evidenced by Sec. 142 (a) of the negotiable Instruments Act no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sect....
(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PC NO. 307/2024 AND CC NO. 4282/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 138 OF N I ACT, 1881 PENDING BEFORE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-IV RAICHUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. ... punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. ... the sworn statement, as the mandate of the statute is, while taking cognizance of....
ORDER ... A complaint alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was filed by the petitioner through his pleader. ... In such circumstances, the remedy available to the complainant under Sec.138 read with Sec.142 of the Act will be illusory. ... Sec.142 of the Act provides thus: ... “Cognizance of offen....
A.1, A.2 and A.6 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C on 09.07.2014 for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ... b. ... Firstly on the ground that though in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathods case(1 supra) the Apex Court held that the Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was bounced will alone have jurisdiction to try the offence under Sec.138 of N.I. ... Such sworn statement ....
There is no dispute about the provision of Section 142 of the NI Act. Secondly, upon failure of the drawer to pay the money and even notice has been issued for compliance of the requisite condition under Section 138 of the NI Act, then the liability of the drawer for being prosecuted for the offences, arises. But cognizance has arisen for offences under Section 138 of the NI Act, twice. Firstly, the pre-cognizance, that is soon after receipt of a banking memo to the effect that the cheque was returned or bounced within the period of limitation when the complaint was filed a....
The manner of taking of cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is provided for under Section 142 of the said Act.
The manner of taking of cognizance of offence under section 138 of the NI Act is provided for under section 142 of the said Act.
1. The petitioner herein prays to quash the complaint i.e. Case Nos. 1279 of 2009 and 3715 of 2008 pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Complaints are for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. One Shashikumar Purushottam Mohta is the complainant.
Clause (a) of sec. 142 of the Act is relevant and the same reads; 12. Sec. 138 of the Act defines the offence relating to dishonor of cheque punishable under that section. Sec. 142 of the Act provides for a special provision for taking cognizance of offence under sec. 138.
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
