TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). 2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainantBank granted cash credit facility of Rs. 10,000/to the respondent no.2/accused- Kisan, on 09.04.2001. The accused executed necessary documents in favour of the Bank. There was an outstanding amount of Rs. 14,380/. An award of Rs. 14,380/was passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, with interest thereon. On 01.03.2005, the amount due with interest was to the tune of Rs. 20,004/. On 23.02.2005 a cheque was issued by the accused in respect of the loan outstanding against him for the amount of Rs. 20,004/bearing Cheque No.626151 thereby admitting his liability. The said cheque was issued by the accused towards outstanding amount and for crediting the same in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of security of transaction of loan. The learned A.P.P. pointed out that there is an unexplained delay in lodging of the complaint and the accused had given an undertaking after lodging of the complaint. Hence, it is of no assistance to the complainant for the purpose of extending the limitation. So also, the cheque issued by the accused was deposited in the account of his father which indicates that the entire transaction was with the father of the accused and not with him. Therefore, the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of both the sides and gone through the record carefully. As far as the contention of the learned A.P.P. that there is an unexplained delay in lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....outstanding against the accused. In fact, it was the duty of the complainant to maintain the credit account of the outstanding amount. The said amount was shown as Rs. 13,509/and not as Rs. 20,004/, as claimed by the complainant. It is the case of the accused that the complainant had received the said cheque at the time of granting of loan which bears his signature. According to the accused, it was a security cheque. The complainant has not proved that the cheque was issued from a particular cheque book. The said fact would have proved as to when the cheque was issued, whether at the time of signing the loan papers or thereafter. The complainantBank has failed to adduce any evidence in that regard. Similarly, it was the duty of the complain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber of the accused as 0000226. It means that the account number of the accused was 0000226 and not 1209, which was mentioned on the cheque. It also indicates that the said account No.1209 was not of the complainant and it appears that the cheque was drawn on the account of the father of the accused, as stated by the complainant in his complaint. In view of the said discrepancy in the account number mentioned on the cheque and on the statement of account of the accused, the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the N.I. Act is not made out against the accused. So far as the provisions under section 138 of the Act are concerned, to constitute the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:( i) a person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstant case, it is found that the cheque in question was not drawn on the account maintained by the accused in Washim Urban Cooperative Bank, Washim. In these circumstances, no case is made out against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. 8. In the case of Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi, reported in MANU/SC/1198/2009, it happened that the dishonoured cheque was issued from an account which was not maintained by the accused but it was of some other person. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence punishable u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 of the IPC. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the very first ingredient of Sec.138 of the Act is not satisfied and, as such, the ....