1995 (5) TMI 296 - HC - Indian Laws

Bank Employee Reinstated: Conviction Under Negotiable Instruments Act Doesn't Imply Moral Turpitude, Says Court.

Saseendran Nair Versus General Manager, State Bank of Travancore and Ors.

The Kerala HC held that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not inherently involve moral turpitude. The court quashed the ... - Issues:1. Whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involves moral turpitudeRs.Analysis:The judgment of the Kerala High Court delves into the question of whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act entails moral turpitude. The case involves an appellant who was a discharged employee of a bank due to his conviction under Section 138 for issuing a bounced cheque. The appellant contended that Section 138 does not constitute an offence involving moral turpitude. The court examined the appellant's argument and the bank's justification for dismissal based on the Bipartite Agreement and the Banking Regulation Act. The court highlighted the definitions of moral turpitude from various legal sources, emphasizing that not all offences necessarily involve moral turpitude.The court discussed the nature of the offence under Section 138, emphasizing that the act of issuing a cheque without sufficient funds does not automatically equate to cheating under the Indian Penal Code. It clarified that the offence arises only when the cheque is dishonored and not when issued. The court analyzed the definitions of moral turpitude from legal dictionaries and jurisprudence, emphasizing the need for intentional wrongdoing and depravity for an act to involve moral turpitude. The court also referenced a previous judgment to support the principle that each case must be examined individually to determine if an offence involves moral turpitude.In conclusion, the court held that the offence under Section 138 in this case did not reflect moral turpitude based on the specific facts and circumstances. The court dismissed the contention that the appellant should have raised an industrial dispute instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 and quashed the dismissal order, directing the reinstatement of the appellant with full benefits, without prejudice to any other actions the bank may pursue against him.Overall, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the concept of moral turpitude in the context of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the need to consider the specific facts of each case to determine if an offence involves moral turpitude.