Skip to main content

Analysis of Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

 Analysis of Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

By Shagun Mahendroo


Since the Negotiable Instrument Act was passed before our country gained independence, the majority of its provisions are backed up by English law. Certain changes to the Act were adopted after independence to strengthen the provisions. The statute was drafted in 1866 and went into effect in 1881.

The Negotiable Documents Act governs a variety of negotiable instruments such as promissory notes, bills of exchange, and checks. In simple terms, it refers to any transferrable document that is now being delivered.

In Chapter XVII - Of Penalties in Case of Dishonour of Certain Cheques for insufficiency of Funds in Records from Section 138 to Section 148 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a statutory and judicial perspective is focused on the various elements of regulations and procedures established in cases similar to Cheque Dishonour. The goal of decriminalising this clause is to encourage foreign investment in our country.

The penalties for a cheque dishonour is outlined in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, Section 138, allows legal redress in the event of a cheque bounce. By establishing the infraction, the major goal is to stimulate the usage of cheques and strengthen the legitimacy of cheque transactions. A non-cognizable offence is one that is committed under Section 138. It is also a bailable offence.

The following elements will be present in the section 138 offence:

  • Cheque drawn by the drawer for the payment of a debt or other obligation.

  • Cheque must be presented within 6 months of the date it was drawn.

  • Cheque dishonour and unpaid return by the drawee bank.

  • Within 30 days of receiving information from the bank regarding the return of a cheque as unpaid, send a statutory notice to the drawer seeking payment of the cheque amount.

  • Failure to make a form payment by the drawer within 15 days after receiving the Notice

A person who violates Section 138 is subject to imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or a fine of up to twice the amount of the check, or both.

Section 138 establishes a criminal offence in the case of dishonour cheques based on insufficient funds in a person's bank account that exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement signed with the bank as specified in the act.

Procedure for Filing a Complaint: 

After following all of the steps outlined in Section 138 of the Act, the Complaint must be filed with the Concerned Magistrate within 30 days of the day on which the drawer's 15-day term for monetary payment expires. The Complainant must sign the complaint himself or through a fully authorised Power of Attorney holder. If the complaint is accompanied by an affidavit from the complainant, the appropriate magistrate will review the complaint and papers on the day it is presented.

As previously stated, summonses will be issued to the accused in accordance with section 144 of the act. If the accused is served with a summons and appears in court, the court will urge him to post bail to ensure his attendance during the trial (since the offence under Section 138 is a bailable offence) and issue a warrant to the accused under section 251 of the CRPC. The investigation into the case then begins.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree