TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 person who is neither the drawer nor the signatory of the cheque can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and (ii) whether the summoning order and the complaint could be sustained against such person in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether a person who is neither the drawer nor the signatory of the cheque can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: Liability under Section 138 arises only when a cheque is drawn by a person on an account maintained by that person, the cheque is issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, and it is dishonoured on presentation after due notice and failure to pay. The provision fastens criminal liability on the drawer of the cheque. The principle cannot be extended to an individual who is not the account holder or signatory merely because of an alleged joint or related liability. Section 141 has no application to such individual liability outside the statutory context of offences by companies. On the facts, the cheque was issued and signed by the petitioner's sister, not by the petitioner.
Conclusion: The petitioner could not be prosecuted under Section 138, and the proceedings were not maintainable against her.
Issue (ii): Whether the summoning order and the complaint could be sustained against such person in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The Magistrate may take cognizance upon complaint facts constituting an offence, but the process cannot be issued mechanically. Where the complaint and supporting material do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence against the proposed accused, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process. Since the petitioner was not the drawer or signatory and no legally sustainable basis existed to fasten criminal liability upon her, the summoning order could not stand.
Conclusion: The summoning order was liable to be set aside and the complaint could not continue against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the criminal process against the petitioner was quashed, while the complaint survived only against the actual drawer of the cheque.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, criminal liability attaches only to the drawer or signatory of the cheque drawn on his or her maintained account, and joint or alleged liability by itself does not attract prosecution of a non-drawer individual.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
