138 ni

cheque given for guarentee purpose even when it bounces doesnt constitute an offence under sec 138nia

Dear Arvind

By saying guarantee cheque you mean secutity cheque ?

Respected Sir,

This citation of supreme court may be useful:

MANU/SC/0669/2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On: 12.08.2002 Appellants: I.C.D.S. Ltd.Vs. Respondent: Beena Shabeer and Anr.

11. The issue as regards the co-extensive liability of the guarantor and the principle debtor, in our view, is totally out of the purview of Section 138 of the Act, neither the same calls for any discussion therein. The language of the Statute depicts the intent of the law-makers to the effect that wherever there is a default on the part of one in favour of another and in the event a cheque is issued in discharge of any debt or other liability there cannot be any restriction or embargo in the matter of application of the provisions of Section 138 of the Act: 'Any cheque' and 'other liability' are the two key expressions which stands as clarifying the legislative intent so as to bring the factual context within the ambit of the provisions of the Statute. Any contra interpretation would defeat the intent of the legislature.

yes sir i mean the same.

as a procedure, almost all financial institutins take blank but signed cheques from borrower or guaranter as security. such cheque is usually just signed by the account holder (having very specific handriwriting style etc), when it goes to the bank for payment by first look only very easily it can be identified that such cheque contains different handwriting for signature then the rest of cheque body.

when such a cheque comes for payment to the bank, why not the bankers object this to the bearer of cheque and inform account holder to confirm if such cheque is issued by account holder or not.

as i am aware that valid cheque is only that cheque which has all components of the cheque written in same ink and handwriting, otherwise it is objectionable (i hope i am updated).

is there any any direction or law stating "valid cheque" ? pls let me know, it may help many people at our place.

regards

Madras HC division bench had ruled that notice u/s 138(b) in cheque bouncing case was mandatoy to EACH DIRECTOR.

Now on 15/5/2015 SC has overturnd this judgement. So prior to this date, lacs ofpeople got away and now in pending cases all will be prosecuted. Any comment? Hypothetically, if Sec 302 of IPC is declared null and void, we should pray for all those have been hanged.
They say law is evolving. In other words, there will never be finality. Pl comment.