Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a person who is not a signatory to the cheque, though the cheque was issued from a joint account and signed by the other account holder, can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and whether the criminal proceedings against such person are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the drawer of the cheque. The provision is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. In the absence of any statutory basis for extending liability, a non-signatory cannot be fastened with criminal liability merely because of a relationship with the signatory or because the account is joint. Section 141 provides an exception only in the situations contemplated by that provision and does not apply where the accused is neither the drawer nor the signatory of the cheque. The materials on record showed that the applicant had not signed the cheque and the complaint itself disclosed no basis to prosecute her under Section 138.
Conclusion: The applicant could not be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as she was not the drawer or signatory of the cheque, and the proceedings against her were liable to be quashed.