sanjeev sangamnerkar (service) 06 August 2008

Dishonor Sec.138 & 139

THANKS FOR PROMPT ANSWERS.I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE ANSWER RECEIVED SO FAR. THE JUDGEMENTS OF MOMBAY & MADRAS HIGH COURT LEAD TO THE CONCULSION THAT CHEQUE GIVEN AFTER 3 YARS CANNOT BE COVERED U/S 138/139 BEING BASRRED BY LIMITATION IN VIEW OF EXPLAINATION TO SECTION 138.IT MEANS SECTION 138 WHICH PRESUMPTIVE IS MEANINGLESS IF READ WITH EXPLAINATION & NO CASE IS COVERABLE U/S 138 IF CHEQUE ISSUED IS BEYOND 3 YRS. IN VIEW OF EXPLAINATION TO 138 OF NIA. THEN SECTION SECTION 139 IS REDUANDANT/SUPERFLUS. KINDLY THROW LIGHT ON THIS WITH SUPP[ORTING APEX COURT DECISION,IFANY.

Reply Follow

8 Replies

lawyers friend (na) 06 August 2008

CAN U PROVIDE ME THAT JUDGEMENTS OF MOMBAY & MADRAS HIGH COURT....THANKS IN ADV.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE ) 06 August 2008

And also pl tell about the three years time factor. Is it from three years of the legal claim.

sanjeev sangamnerkar (service) 06 August 2008

THE CITATIONS ARE 1) 2006 INDIANLAW MUM 555 & 2007INDIANLAW MAD 404 .IN BOTH THE ABOVE DECISIONS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE CHEQUE SHOULD BE ISSUED WITHIN 3 YRS OR THE CONTRACTED PERIOD. SINCE THE CHEQUES WERE GIVEN/OBTAINED AFTER 3 YRS OR AFTER CONTRACTED PERIOD THE CASES WERE NOT SUSTAINED & THE ACCUSED WAS ACQUITED.IT MEANS EXPLANATION TO SECTION 138 RUNS CONTRARY TO SEC 139 OR VICEVERSA. IN MY CASE THE LOAN WAS GIVEN IN 2002 & THE CHEQUE WAS RECEIVED IN 2007. THE ACCUSED HAS PLEaDED BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE CASE IS TIMEBARRED. NOW WHAT IS THE REMEDY? PLEASE QUOTE APEX COURT DECISION TO CONTEST MY CASE OR THROW LIGHT ON THIS.

sanjeev sangamnerkar (service) 06 August 2008

cheque obtained 3 years after giving a loan

H. S. Thukral (Lawyer) 06 August 2008

Dear Mr. Sanjeev

A complaint under section 138 can not be dismissed at the thresh hold. Section 139 goves presumption in favour of the holder that the cheque was given in discharge of a debt or liability. The onus to rebut the presumption shall be on the accused to prove that ti was not in discharge of debt or liability or for that matter debt was time barred and not a legally enforceable liability This will be proved by the accused during the proceedings. So section 139 has altogether a different meaning and intention.

I hope I have made things clear to you.

Guest (n/a) 07 August 2008

Sec147 of NI Act says compoundable at what stage ?viz

1)Till the judgement is given?

2)Even after judgement is given?

3)If the accused is imprisoned after imprisonment can it be compunded?

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE ) 28 July 2011

Yes it is the dilema that once a process is issued whether rightly or wrongly a NI 138 accused has to face trial but it is easy for any accused to come out of it .