N.I. ACT

There is a difference between Bill of Echange and Promissory Note. Once the cheque is bounce there is an offence under the NIA.

You are issuing a cheque that means you owe to the person

that is the gist.

dear anil,ji

that  would  not  be an offence

the cimplainant must show the leagle transaction when it is claimed by accused that there is no ttransaction. this should be in cross examination and in statement under section 113 of cr.p.c., the provision of section 114(g) of indian evidence act should be used to rebbut the presumption by accused. 

dear anil,ji

that  would  not  be an offence

the cimplainant must show the leagle transaction when it is claimed by accused that there is no ttransaction. this should be in cross examination and in statement under section 113 of cr.p.c., the provision of section 114(g) of indian evidence act should be used to rebbut the presumption by accused. 

dear anil,ji

that  would  not  be an offence

the cimplainant must show the leagle transaction when it is claimed by accused that there is no ttransaction. this should be in cross examination and in statement under section 113 of cr.p.c., the provision of section 114(g) of indian evidence act should be used to rebbut the presumption by accused. 

 pls reas s.313 further statement , in place of s.113.

NPT is right and I endorse my opinion.

 Pl read this judgement 

Ksl And Industries Ltd., vs Ksl And Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As Krishna Texport Industries Ltd.), A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 vs Mannalal Khandelwal And The State Of Maharashtra Through The Office Of The Government Pleader Intervenor: Mr. Vijay Agarwal, President on 1/2/2005 

Judgement by Justice Dalveer Bhandari

The operative part reads:

The maker of the cheque is not liable for prosecution if

the cheque is given by way of a gift, present or donation and is dishonoured.

In other words giving the cheque does not constitute an offence under Sec.138 unless debt/legally enforceable debt is proved.