TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a cheque initially issued as security, but presented on default under the parties' agreement, attracts liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) whether the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were made out.
Issue (i): Whether a cheque initially issued as security, but presented on default under the parties' agreement, attracts liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: A cheque is not excluded from Section 138 merely because it was described as security at the time of delivery. Where the agreement itself provides that the cheque may be presented on failure to pay the stipulated amount within the agreed period, the cheque assumes the character of one issued towards an enforceable liability upon default. The cheque in question was presented after the agreed period had expired, and the contractual terms showed that it was meant to be encashed on non-payment.
Conclusion: The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was made out, and the acquittal on that count could not stand.
Issue (ii): Whether the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were made out.
Analysis: The materials did not establish dishonest intention so as to constitute cheating. The transaction was essentially one governed by the agreement between the parties, and the conduct disclosed non-payment rather than fraudulent inducement at the inception.
Conclusion: The reversal of conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was correctly upheld.
Final Conclusion: The complaint succeeded in part: liability under Section 138 was affirmed, the acquittal under Section 420 was sustained, and in view of compounding and payment, no sentence followed.
Ratio Decidendi: A cheque issued as security may still attract Section 138 when, under the governing agreement, it becomes payable on default and is presented against an existing enforceable liability; absence of dishonest intention prevents conviction for cheating.
TaxTMI 
