Date of the cheque - correction
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 April 2011
This query is : Resolved
Complainant used the old and blank cheque of the accused – the cheque bears a preprinted year starts with 19__. Now the complainant fills the cheque and after filing the date it looks as follows:-
02.02.200719___.
The cheque was presented on 02.02.2007 and got bounced. The accused takes a plea that:-
There is a correction in the date of the cheque it needs the signature of the of the drawer. So complaint liable to be quashed?
The date of cheque is invalid. It shows 02.02.200719.(19 is preprinted by the bank). So, the complaint liable to be quashed?
Experts please give your opinion?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 10 April 2011
This is not a god defence and no benefit is going to be given inn favour of accused person in the light of all other documents like bank intimation, deposit slip, transaction behind the cheque, the particular time when such pre-printed year cheque book was issued to the accused person etc.
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate
(Expert) 10 April 2011
at the time of marit total evidences calculated!
yes, it is a good defence.but at the time of juudgement if only this is alone evidence definitly in yr favour otherwise the soundness of other evidence is also counted!
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate
(Expert) 10 April 2011
at the time of marit total evidences calculated!
yes, it is a good defence.but at the time of juudgement if only this is alone evidence definitly in yr favour otherwise the soundness of other evidence is also counted!
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 10 April 2011
All told the cheque is not a valid cheque and even if case is filed process issued the accused can file a criminal complaint for forgery and extortion.
And to other friends giving diverse opinions my simple counter query is when door is not open how you can enter a room.
The date is foundation , if no foundation it is not possible to erect any story on it.
B.B.R.Goud.
(Expert) 10 April 2011
hi. as the date is the main ingredient to institute the case, the date itself is wrong. how it is allowed and what is the criteria? so there is no question of bounce.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 10 April 2011
Please indicate as to what was the reason given by the bank while returning the cheque without making payment.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 April 2011
amazingly the bank had returned it for "insufficient funds". The bank had not noticed or bothered the alteration in the date.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 10 April 2011
There is nothing to be amazed about.
When the cheque clearly shows the hand written or type written date as 02.02.200719 (where 19 exists as a pre-printed number), the last two digits 19 needs to be ignored. The bank has done the right thing. You have to fight your case on pure merits and certainly not on these wafer thin technicalities, which in any case is not a matter at all.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 April 2011
Mr.Ramachandran,
for argument sake if we write as 02.02.1997.
here we use the preprinted 19, and it is accepted by the banker.
when we suffix with the preprinted matter that preprinted matter is taken into account.
when we prefix with the preprinted matter the preprinted matter is not taken into account.
What is the logic behind it? Is it logic or legal?
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Every alpabhet or a numerical that it either hand written or typed or printed is important for the instrument to be negotiable.
This queriest,states that that only the first two numericals representing the century are printed on the cheque.ok,then first the date then the month should be before the printed numericals.Only then its valid. Here he states that the date mentioned in the cheque was 02-02-2007 and then the printed numerical 19 following.Thats very much ubsured and the cheque is not entitled for validity under any sections of the ni act.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Dear Mr. Sainath,
Let us understand. The bank has not taken objection to the date in the cheque. They have returned the cheque unpaid for 'insufficient funds'. The accused has to therefore meet this issue. The case has been filed not for wrong date on the instrument, but for dishonour due to 'insufficient funds'.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 13 April 2011
What the banker had done is wrong. The banker should have written the cheque as invalid date.
In a different case the bank had returned the cheque stating that the signature differs, but, the beneficiary was having the proof (bankers attestation of the drawers signature), he filed the case.
The bankers are also human beings they also commit mistakes.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Dear Anonymous,
Assuming, though I do not agree, that the banker had to have objected to the incorrect date on the cheque, what is the remedy that the accused has now?
If at all it is banker's mistake, the accused has to file a separate case against the bank for damages etc. - nothing more.
As far as the Complaint u/s. 138 N.I.Act is concerned, which is based on the banker's return memo saying 'insufficiency of funds' is not the accused supposed to defend himself. Can he say that in response to the complaint, that the banker ought to have returned the cheque for wrong date and not for 'insufficiency of funds'? Assuming that the cheque was returned by the banker saying 'wrong date', and on receipt of the notice from the complainant, is it not expected of the drawer to give a fresh cheque with proper date or give proper response? Similarly, the cheque having been returned for 'insufficiency of funds' is it not expected of the drawer to give proper response? Having given such appropriate response/reply to the notice, can the accused not expected to put up a defence against the Sec.138 complaint as well?
So, instead of harping on a non-issue, the accused has to put up a strong defence against action u/s 138 N.I.Act.
