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 dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the drawer had closed the account before presentation attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the presumption as to the date of drawing of a post-dated cheque defeats such liability.
Analysis: A cheque is necessarily drawn on an existing account maintained by the drawer. The expression referring to insufficiency in "that account" covers a situation where the drawer had maintained an account when the cheque was issued but later closed it before presentation, because such closure effectively renders the account incapable of honouring the cheque. The statutory object behind Section 138 is to enhance the credibility of cheques and prevent drawers from defeating payment by closing accounts after issuing cheques. The presumption under Section 118(b) is only a rule of evidence and is rebuttable; it does not conclusively fix the date of drawing as the date borne on the cheque. On the admitted facts, the cheque was post-dated and had been issued earlier, so the complainant could still establish that the drawer had a live account when the cheque was drawn.
Conclusion: Yes. Dishonour on the ground of account closure can fall within Section 138, and the petition for quashing on that ground fails.
Ratio Decidendi: Closure of the drawer's bank account before presentation of a cheque does not take the case outside Section 138 where the account existed when the cheque was drawn, and the presumption regarding the date of drawing is rebuttable.