B. SARVOTHAMA Vs. S.M. HANEEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the accused before the trial court. The complainant had alleged the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(Hereinafter referred to as the NI Act, for brevity.)

(2.) It was alleged that the petitioner had purchased a bus from the complainant. The petitioner was in arrears in the payment of the price, in a sum of Rs.28,000/-. It is stated that in discharge of the said liability, the petitioner had issued a cheque drawn on " self or bearer ". The complainant having presented the cheque for payment to the banker of the petitioner, the same is said to have been dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. A memo was issued by the bank to that effect.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the cheque in question was drawn on self, and the dishonour of the same would not attract Section 138 of the NI Act, as held by a learned single judge of this court in the case of V. Rama Shetty v. N. Sasidaran Nayar, 2006 CrLJ 4297.