https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285957 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not liable to be quashed merely because the cheque was returned with a "payment stopped by the drawer" endorsement instead of words indicating insufficiency of funds. The decisive test is whether the statutory ingredients of dishonour are made out on the facts, not the particular phrase used by the bank. If the averments and circumstances show dishonour within the scope of Section 138, a stop-payment endorsement does not by itself defeat prosecution. The Kerala HC held that a rigid literal reading would undermine the object of the provision, and the complaint could proceed. en-us Fri, 05 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:04:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285957 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not liable to be quashed merely because the cheque was returned with a "payment stopped by the drawer" endorsement instead of words indicating insufficiency of funds. The decisive test is whether the statutory ingredients of dishonour are made out on the facts, not the particular phrase used by the bank. If the averments and circumstances show dishonour within the scope of Section 138, a stop-payment endorsement does not by itself defeat prosecution. The Kerala HC held that a rigid literal reading would undermine the object of the provision, and the complaint could proceed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285957