LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Mahender Singh (lawyer)     28 April 2012

138 ni act

a cheque is bounced u/s 138 ni act on remarks "account closed". the  a/c  is cash credit account .the account is closed in 2009 due to non transation of account.the cheuque was presented on 09-04-2011 in the bank.the cheque book not surrender in the bank.the complainant admitted in the evidence that he written the date on the account. what are the defence of the accoused in the case?



Learning

 5 Replies

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     28 April 2012

The case is liable to be dismissed., however you should not be over confidence and take multiple defenses which are many.

 

 

Simple tricks of defense.

 

When a bucket is lost in a well what normally in a village they do to recover this bucket. They keep a multi angled hook catch just like an octopus . It has small small hooks at different angles. It is lowered in the well the bucket gets entangled in any one of the hooks.

 

Similarly for defense you must not stick to any one strategy however plausible and strong it may look. Study each and every word of the documents and find as many faults as possible. You will get numerous mistakes of the opponent.

 

Please do not put much reliance on citations of higher courts since many times even applicable but lower courts may disagree. So  in over confidence due to dependence on citations other opportunities of defense are lost.

 

Power of defense is power of logic, power of negative, power of darkness and it is perpetual and immense. It is the skill of defense to harness it. Dive deep and you will get pearls on surface you just collect garbage.

 

 

 

 

 

k.kumar raja (advocate)     29 April 2012

Mr.jsdn is very correct

Mahender Singh (lawyer)     29 April 2012

thanks to all of u

R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com)     01 May 2012

The biggest premises on cheque bounce cases is: How did the complainant got a signed cheque from accused ? For this it is presumed by the courts that the cheque was received by the holder for legal liability. Once the proceeding starts and signature admitted, then it is upto accused to rebut this presumption.

 

Again cases like above will not straightaway fall under S.138, but courts proceed with the case. The reason is above kind of scenario can occur, either the cheque was security cheque, or complainant got hold of some signed cheque leaf somehow, or drawer issued a dead cheque knowing fully well that accounts was closed. In first instance S.138 is not applicable, the others are 420 respectively on either side. 

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     02 May 2012

 

SC has generally held that the provisions of NI act are legal fiction and hence all of them have to be strictly followed .lapses on the part of complainant are fatal.

 

 Most of the complainants  fail to follow many imp requirements and that is why it is always simple, sure and easy for any accused of cheque case to win.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register