REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

B.MOHAN KRISHNA Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHERRAS V. DE RUTZEN [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR CANADA V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR ONTARIO [REFERRED TO]
IN RE,CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR SALES OF MOTOR SPIRIT AND LUBRICANTS TAXATION ACT [REFERRED TO]
LIM CHIN AIK V. THE QUEEN [REFERRED TO]
HARDING V. PRICE [REFERRED TO]
BREND V. WOOD [REFERRED TO]
SWEET V. PARSLEY [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANYAN V. MUTTUSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIK OIL INDUSTRIES V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KUNDAN LAL RALLARAM VS. CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. KATHI KALU OGHAD [REFERRED TO]
SYED ABRARUL HASSAN HABIB HIDAYATULLAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MAYER HAM GEORGE [REFERRED TO]
NATHULAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH GRAIN AND SEED MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ACHARYA D PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HARBHAJAN SINGH DHILLON [REFERRED TO]
PYARALI K TEJANI VS. MAHADEO RAMCHANDRA DANGE [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT TRAVANCORE AGENCY COCHIN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA ERNAKULAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NARAYAN SINGH:SHAMSHERSINGH [REFERRED TO]
AKBAR BADRUDIN GIWANI VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA VS. AMRATLAL PRAJIVANDAS [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY DUTT VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ALBERTA VS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The provisions of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act"), comprising sections 138 to 142, concerning penalties in cases of dishonour of certain cheques for insufficiency of funds in the accounts, inserted by section 4 of the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 66 of 1988) are under challenge in this batch of writ petitions.

(2.) The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 66 of 1988 says :

(3.) Section 139 of the Act incorporates a rule of presumption to the effect that until the contrary is proved, the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 of the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or liability. Section 140 lays down that when a person is prosecuted for an offence under section 138, he is not entitled to plead in his defence that he had no reason to believe when he issued the cheque that it may be dishonoured on presentment for the reasons stated in section 138. Section 141 concerns offences by companies. Section 142 deals with cognizance of offences punishable under section 138. To take cognizance of an offence under section 138, the necessary pre-condition is a written complaint by the payee or the holder of the cheque in due course and the complaint must be within one month from the date of failure on the part of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course from the date of receipt of the notice. No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial First Class Magistrate is empowered to try an offence punishable under section 138.

Click here to view full judgment.

B MOHAN KRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address