T N DEVI Vs. A C HARIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a person who has not signed the cheque, nevertheless a joint holder of the account which can be operated by any of the account holders, culpably liable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act This is the short question that arises for determination in this Revision Petition.

(2.) The petitioner - a woman, has a joint account with the bank. She and her husband are competent to operate the account separately. The cheque in question was issued by her husband, the 1st accused. Such cheque was issued to the complainant for the discharge of a liability of the 1st accused. The cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand issued to both the accused did not succeed in securing payment. The petitioner herein (the 2nd accused) specifically asserted in the reply notice that he has no liability under S.138 of the N. I. Act. The complainant filed a private complaint to initiate criminal proceedings against both the accused under S.138 of the N. I. Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance. The petitioner rushed to this Court with Crl. M. C. No. 3720/01 to quash the proceedings against her. That petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner must urge the relevant contentions before the Court before which the complaint was pending. The petitioner raised this contention before the learned Magistrate and claimed that proceedings against her may be dropped invoking the dictum in KM. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 (1) KLT 1 . Her prayer was rejected. It is against this order that the petitioner has come before this Court.

(3.) A look at the law first. S.138 of the N. I. Act reads as follows: