Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, deals with the offense of dishonouring a cheque. Over the years, numerous judgments have shaped the interpretation and application of this section. Here are 10 landmark judgments that have favoured the accused:
1. Dalmia Cements v. Galaxy Trading Agencies (2001)
The Supreme Court held that the objective of Section 138 is to safeguard the interests of the payee whose payment has not been issued. This judgment emphasized the need to prove the accused’s intention to cheat.
2. Canara Bank v. Canara Sales Corporation (1987)
This judgment highlighted the relationship between the banker and its customers and the duties involved. It emphasized that a banker’s liability is limited to the amount deposited.
3. Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta (2017)
The Supreme Court passed a verdict stating that the offenses under Section 138 are civil in nature. This judgment has significant implications for the accused, as it shifts the burden of proof.
4. Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (2004)
The court ruled that no action will be taken by legal notice but only by the acceptance of such notice. This judgment emphasizes the importance of proper notice.
5. Smt. Asha Baldwa v. Ram Gopal
The court ruled that handing a dishonored cheque does not amount to an offense under Section 138. This judgment highlights the need for additional evidence.
6. Mayawati v. Yogesh Kumar Gosain
This judgment highlights the strict liability of the default of payment. It emphasizes the accused’s responsibility to prove their innocence.
7. Kusum Ingots And Alloys Ltd vs Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd (2000)
This judgment laid down the grounds to constitute the wrong under Section 138. It emphasizes the need for a valid agreement.
8. Modi Cements Ltd v Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998)
The court declared the intention of Section 138 to increase the efficiency of functioning of banks. This judgment highlights the importance of banking regulations.
9. Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta (2017)
The Supreme Court ruled that offenses under Section 138 are civil in nature. This judgment has significant implications for the accused.
10. Vinay Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)
The court ruled that the accused’s intention to cheat is a crucial element in Section 138 cases. This judgment emphasizes the need for evidence.
These landmark judgments have shaped the interpretation of Section 138, providing valuable insights into the legal nuances. They have also favoured the accused by emphasizing the need for evidence, proper notice, and the civil nature of offenses under Section 138.
Key Takeaways:
Section 138 aims to safeguard the interests of the payee.
Offenses under Section 138 are civil in nature.
The accused’s intention to cheat is crucial.
Proper notice and evidence are essential.
Banking regulations are critical.
Stay updated: Follow our blog for more insightful articles on legal topics and current events.
Signature diff may,some time , lead to fabrication of signature. In such situation it may be just to send cheque to hand writing experts