cheque bouncing by wilful offender

Respected Senior  Advocates and
clients who have participated in this forum, as a budding advocate i
too want to share my views. Its true that money is money whether for a
taker or a giver and no one will lend money for charity. The basic
intention for enactment of Negotiable Instruments Act is that to
support and increase the usage of other forms of money such as cheques
among the people. Before enactment of  NI Act people used to
fear to recive their money in the form of cheques, so as to make people
belive the cheques and to punish the people who sign on 
cheques with ease as though they are signing on autograph books the Law
makers brought the enactment.  As we all know NI act 
cases under 138 and 142 of  NI Act is not for recovery of the
money but to punish the accused for issuance of a cheque whithout
having sufficent balance in his account. So we cannot expect recovery
of money by filing a NI act case. Settlement is another thing. But dont
expect that a matter will be settled and the borrower will pay the
amount by filing a NI act  case. One has to initiate civil
proceedings also to recover the amounts. Friends we all know that NI
act is most technical legislation brought into action by lawmakers and
there are so many loopholes in the same to escape from being punished.
So it would always be prudent to initiate civil proceedings also so as
to recover the amounts.  I dont agree with Shashi Kumar about
inflating the amounts and filing the cases. if one is so careful he
ought not to have signed blank cheques and promissory notes.

Yes I too agree with your views Srinivas the intent of legislature is to see that the cheque gets its true value and passes through hands just like money passes.

My view is that the sufferings that the complainant has is more than that of a Accused.  In my experience I find the Accused becoming more cunning and cheater after attending court and indulges in more of such act.

They know the loopholes of the law.   Lets assume that a person is due for Rs. Rs.10,00,000/- ....   for him a simple imprisonment of two years is nothing but a earning ... a profit  to him.   Moreover they spend a nice time in Jail with good air and mingling with more of such Accused.

I feel the punishment the sentence passed is itself  less.   It should be one year for one lac and two years of two lakhs and so on the maximum being 7years.  

Now a days  138 cases takes shorter period, and there is clarity in decisions. Once Facts are before u, especially the true and correct address, Sign on Cheque, Transactions, Cheque Return Memo with Limitations in mind,increased Court Fees of 2%; Instructions not to allow adjournments, Now a days one do'nt have to wait so long. Compensation take care of Interst lost and legal Charges. Of Course ,it depends from Court to Court, and judges also. Now it is favourable to recover the money fast. But my  freiens shoud not encourage MONEY LENDERS charging over 5% p m and extract not money, but blood of borrowers.

Now a days  138 cases takes shorter period, and there is clarity in decisions. Once Facts are before u, especially the true and correct address, Sign on Cheque, Transactions, Cheque Return Memo with Limitations in mind,increased Court Fees of 2%; Instructions not to allow adjournments, Now a days one do'nt have to wait so long. Compensation take care of Interst lost and legal Charges. Of Course ,it depends from Court to Court, and judges also. Now it is favourable to recover the money fast. But my  freiens shoud not encourage MONEY LENDERS charging over 5% p m and extract not money, but blood of borrowers.

Dear Mr. Sandeep,

You may file a civil suit, but you may not go to the remedy as provided under section 138, NI Act.