Case Law Details
Shree Tyres Vs State (Patiala House Court of Delhi)
The issue under consideration is whether prosecution u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act can be levied for dishonour of a cheque on cheque having difference in the amount in figures and words?
High Court states that the prosecution u/s 138 NI Act can only be launched and continued on dishonour of a cheque. For an instrument to be a cheque, it has first to satisfy the conditions of being valid under Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). He has further contended that the cheque in question was not a valid instrument as per sections 5 and 6 of NI Act. The requirement of a valid cheque as per these two sections is, that it has to be a bill of exchange drawn on a specific banker for a certain amount of money to be paid to a certain person. He has further contended that in the present case, the amount cannot be ascertained from the cheque and that being the case, it is not a valid negotiable instrument. He has further contended that he admits that merely the difference in the amount in figures and words will not invalidate the cheque because as per section 18 of the NI Act, the amount can still be ascertained on the basis of the amount written in words. However, in the present case, the amount written in words is absurd and in no manner can help in ascertainment of the cheque amount. The amount in figures has been written as “Rs.44,18,896/-“ whereas, the amount in words is written as “Forty Four Lacs Eighteen Lacs Eight Hundred and Ninety Six only”. He has therefore contended that the document which was presented before the bank was not a cheque or a negotiable instrument within the definition of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the offence u/s 138 NI Act could only have been attracted if a cheque is dishonoured. In the present case, as the instrument presented was not a valid cheque, it cannot be said that an offence u/s 138 NI Act was committed. He has further contended that even at the stage of section 251 Cr.P.C, it was the duty of the court to carefully go through the record, the evidence, the allegations and then, to arrive at a conclusion whether or not a commission of any offence was disclosed. The Magistrate failed to apply her mind to find out whether, the basic ingredients of the NI Act to make the alleged document a valid cheque were fulfilled or not. HC has therefore contended that the order of the learned trial court deserves to be set aside and revisionists/ accused deserve to be discharged.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The present revision u/s 397/399/401 Cr.P.C has been filed for setting aside order dated 06.06.2019 passed by Ld. MM (NI Act)-03 whereby the ld MM had dismissed the application for discharge of accused/revisionists under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
