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 the drawer, signatory, or account-holder of the dishonoured cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: Section 138 fastens criminal liability on the drawer of the cheque when the cheque, drawn on an account maintained by that person, is returned unpaid and the statutory notice and payment conditions are not satisfied. Section 7 defines the drawer as the maker of the cheque. The provision is penal in nature and therefore requires strict construction. On the admitted facts, the cheque was not drawn by the petitioner, was not issued from her account, and she was not a signatory or joint account-holder. The complaint was also not laid against the entity through which any alleged business involvement was asserted. Mere asserted participation in the underlying transaction or alleged joint liability does not create criminal liability under Section 138.
Conclusion: The petitioner could not be impleaded as an accused under Section 138 for a cheque not drawn by her, and the complaint was liable to be quashed against her.
Final Conclusion: Criminal process under the cheque dishonour law cannot be extended to a person who is not the drawer or signatory of the cheque merely because of alleged involvement in the underlying transaction.
Ratio Decidendi: Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 attaches only to the person who draws the cheque on an account maintained by that person, and joint or alleged underlying liability does not by itself permit prosecution of a non-drawer.