Cheque presented three times without knowledge of accused
tarun
(Querist) 09 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
hello friends,
in a case u/s 138 NI act, the case was filed after dishonor of cheque while it was presented third time without knowledge of the accused. after third time the cheque was dishonored and notice was given to accused and case was filed. can we take benefit of this three times dishonor without knowledge of accused. any citation or judgement in this regard. please provide
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 09 December 2011
You cannot take any advantage. On the contrary, the complainant will claim that it was you who asked him to present the cheque each time with the assurance that the same would be honoured on presentation! While presenting the cheque, in fact the payee does not require to consult you or take your consent. Having issued the cheque, it is your responsibility to ensure that sufficient funds are there in your account and that the cheque when presented gets honoured.
Guest
(Expert) 09 December 2011
Why do you feel, the cheque should be presented with the knowledge of the accused (drawer) when he has not given any notice to the drawee to the effect not to present cheque without knowledge of the drawer?
Rather, dishonour for even third time gives more benfit to the drawee indicating the drawer's clear intention of dishonesty.
Advocate M.Bhadra
(Expert) 09 December 2011
Complainant has right to deposit the dishonored cheque more than one time,however accused can defend the case.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 December 2011
There is no special ocassion or requirement of law to intimate the accused person in writing before presenting cheque issued by him. Once cheque has been issued by him, it is his responsibility to maintain his banak balance to that extent and even when the notice was sent, he should have made the demanded payment.
Accused person cannot take benefit of his own wrong.
Advocate Bhartesh goyal
(Expert) 09 December 2011
the cheque can be presented number of times before issuing notice to accused unless its validity period expires.Presenting cheque three times is neither a defence nor any advatage can be given to you by court.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 09 December 2011
If transaction is otherwise legal that is if the liability is legal that case is against you.
However find a trust worthy witness to claim that you had agreed for the validity for original date only.
Read the notice carefully for mistakes which are always there. If it mentions by chance that earlier dishonor was informed to you than also you have possibility of escape.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 09 December 2011
Tarun,
It is as per Law, and there is nothing unusual.
If accused was smart enough, he would have send a notice, not to deposit the cheque any more, the very first time it was returned,
and you come to know from your bank, that they deducted charges for rebounded cheque.
so it is to the knowledge of accused all three times?
This is not the ground of escape.I agree with Adv Goyal.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 09 December 2011
I also agree with Mr. Goyal and Shroff.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
vasant kulkarni
(Expert) 10 December 2011
YES.I AGREE WITH THE EXPERTS.BUT SEE THAT ALL THE THREE TIMES THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN THE A/C.IT IS ONLY IF ,THE ACCUSED PROVES THAT HE HAD SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN HIS A/C ON ANY ONE OCCASION ,WHEN THE CHEQUE WAS PRESENTED.
Sri Vijayan.A
(Expert) 11 December 2011
If your defense is accepted, then every body can ask for this immunity.
Cheque cant be deposited without the knowledge of the person who issued it.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 11 December 2011
Cheque bounce cases are won or lost on technicals only other wise the law is clear and specific that a) the cheque is from your account and b) it is bounced .
But I give two examples of technicals.
1) Third person issued a cheque for liability of a Pvt Ltd co. Trial court and HC aquited the accused since no locus standi but finally SC straight away convicted the issuer of the chauqe.
2) Trial court convicted the accused but the evidence was taken by two different judges so a pursis was taken by both parties to waive objection and accused was convicted. HC confirmed the conviction. But but and big but the SC said that even the consent can not be a reason to over ride the clear provision of law and de novo trial was ordered.
DEFENSE ADVOCATES FOR THE ACCUSED OF NI 138 THERE ARE LARGE NO OF SUCH ESCAPE ROUTES TO HELP THE ACCUSED.
