TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (1) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 28.11.1990, through their Bankers M/s. Hyderabad Bank, Sarojini Devi Road, Secundcrabad for realisation, with the promise by the accused, that the same will be honoured when presented. However, the said cheque was dishonoured with the Banker's endorsement dated 29.11.1990, "1. referred to drawer. 2. instructions for stopping payment and stamped. 3. exceeds arrangements". It is evident from the Banker's memo dated 29.11.1990 that the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank for wants of funds only. On receipt of the intimation dated 29.11,1990 from the Bank, the complainant has issued a notice on 6.12.1990 to the accused by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due, informing him that the cheque dated 30.6.1990 was dishonoured by their bankers and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nour of cheque for insufficiency, etc, of funds in the accounts. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... like (1) in this case, "I refer to the drawer" (2) "instructions for stoppage of payment" and (3) "stamp exceeds arrangement", it amounts to dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act. On issuance of the notice by the payee or the holder in due course after dishonour, to the drawer demanding payment within 15 days from the date of the receipt of such a notice, if he does not pay the same, the statutory presumption of dishonest intention, subject to any other liability, stands satisfied. Shri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that stoppage of payment due to instructions does not amount to an offence under Section 138 and that, therefore, the ingredients in Section 138 have not been satisfie....