RAJENDRA APPA PATIL Vs. ASHOK SHANKARLAL KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel Mr. B. R. Warma for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. U. S. Malte for the respondent/sole.

(2.) The facts, necessary to dispose of this criminal Application, may be summarised as follows:

(3.) A glance to the Negotiable Instruments Act, would show that Chapter XVII is incorporated by amendment Act No. 66 of 1988 with effect from 1st April, 1989. These provisions were incorporated with a view to encourage the culture of use of the cheques and augmenting the credibility of the instruments. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc. of funds in the account, is made punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Presumption in favour of the holder of the negotiable instrument or cheque is made available under section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The defences, in such prosecution, are provided under section 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In case of offence by the companies, the provision is made under section 141 of the said act. The offence under section 138 is made cognizable and the procedure and period of limitation for filing of such compliant is provided under section 142 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881. The Apex Court, while considering the provisions under sections 138 and 142 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the matter of (Dalima cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. M/s. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd. and others) , reported in 2001 (5) Bom. C. R. (S. C. ) 328 : A. I. R 2001 supreme Court 676, has considered the object of this amendment, from sections 138 to 142 in Para No. 4 of the judgment.