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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a single complaint for dishonour of six cheques issued in the course of the same transaction was barred by Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether dishonour of cheques for the reason "stop payment" attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (iii) Whether the complaint disclosed sufficient basis to proceed against the non-signatory director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Issue (i): Whether a single complaint for dishonour of six cheques issued in the course of the same transaction was barred by Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The cheques were issued in relation to one commercial transaction and were presented and dishonoured in a connected sequence. The legal position recognised that where dishonoured cheques arise out of the same transaction, a consolidated complaint is not invalid merely because more than one cheque is involved. Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held not to bar the summoning order at that stage.
Conclusion: The challenge based on Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 failed and was decided against the petitioners.
Issue (ii): Whether dishonour of cheques for the reason "stop payment" attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: A stop-payment instruction does not take the case outside Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The governing principle applied was that dishonour on account of stop-payment instructions can still constitute the offence if the other statutory ingredients are otherwise satisfied. The Court also noted that a prosecution based on a second or successive dishonour is not impermissible merely because an earlier dishonour was not prosecuted.
Conclusion: The dishonour on the ground of stop payment was held sufficient to sustain proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Issue (iii): Whether the complaint disclosed sufficient basis to proceed against the non-signatory director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: The complaint contained specific allegations regarding the role of the directors, and the record showed that the petitioners continued as directors of the company. For the signatory director, responsibility followed from the act of signing the cheques. For the other director, the complaint and surrounding material were held sufficient at the summoning stage, with the question of actual responsibility and defence left to trial. No unimpeachable material was produced to show that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Conclusion: The proceedings against the directors, including the non-signatory director, were upheld and the challenge was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was found to disclose no ground for interference, and the summoning order was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: For dishonour cases arising from the same transaction, a consolidated complaint is maintainable, stop-payment dishonour attracts Section 138, and directors may be proceeded against at the summoning stage where the complaint contains sufficient averments and no unimpeachable material shows that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.
TaxTMI 
