( 1997 (1) Crimes 55); 1996 (3) Crimes 385 (Mad) = 1996 (4)

( 1997 (1) Crimes 55); 1996 (3) Crimes 385 (Mad) = 1996 (4) CCR 92 (Mad).
 

Dear Tanmoy,

Kindly go through the below site address where you can find the detailed Judgment.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/441794/

OR see the attached file;

But its better and to post query with the name of parties for any Citations then we can provide details easily.

Shortly Your required Ruling is as follows:

1997 (1) Crimes 55 = 1996(3) Crimes 385 (Mubarak Nishan Vs. R.M.Subramanian)

The principle laid down in 1997 (1) Crimes 55 = 1996(3) Crimes 385
(Mubarak Nishan Vs. R.M.Subramanian), the accused cannot be held liable for an
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The exact dictum in the said ratio runs as follows:−

 "After the cheque is issued to the payee or to the holder in due course and before it is presented for encahsement,
notice is issued to him not to present the same for encahsment and yet the payee
or holder in due course presents the cheque to the bank for payment and when it
is returned on instructions, Section 138 does not get attracted"

Wherein the learned judge of this Court has held that if a notice is issued by
the accused after the issuance of cheque to the payee or to the holder in due course before the presentation of the cheque for encashment with a request not
to present the same for encashment and inspite of it the payee or holder in due
course presented the cheque to the bank for payment and the cheque was
dishonoured then an offence under Section 138 will not be attracted.

For your further information, kindly go through this Judgment also.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/979235/

Thank you Aejaz for the site information

Mr. Aejaz Ahmed, thanks a lot from heart. thanks