Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 | S. 138

* S.138 and 139 - “stop payment” instructions in respect of a post-dated cheque – penal provision of Sec.138 would be applicable even when payment is stopped prior to the due date of the cheque – judgment of Bombay High Court holding to the contrary reversed.
2003(2) GLR (SC) 1629 (Goaplast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula)

* Judgment in Urban Co-operative Society passed by the High Court in ignorance and without taking notice of the principles laid down by Supreme Court in NEPC Micon Ltd. – will have to be regarded as a judgment per incuriam
GLR 2004 (2) 792 (H.M. Sheth v. Staet of Gujarat)
NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Megma Leasing AIR 1999 SC 1952 followed ,
Urban Co-operative Credit Society v. State of Gujarat decalred to be per incuriam ,

* S.138 and 141 – transactions in shares entered into by husband and wife with the complainant – cheque issued by husband on bank account maintained by him – joint liability of a person for a debt would not necessarily make that person liable to be prosecuted for dishounour of such liability – held further, concept of “association of individuals” occurring in S. 141 was not applicable in this case – prosecution qua wife quashed.
2003 (3) GLR 2076 (Ritaben Ashokbhai Shah v. Sanjay Kanubhai Sheth)

* S.42 Cr.P.C. – quashing of prosecution – plea that the cheques in question were issued blank and for security purpose to the respondent – no agreement between petitioner and respondent for supply of kerosene to him – plea of petitioner not sufficient enough to quash prosecution – but said plea needs to be considered by trial court during trial in addition to other issues.
Cr.L.J. 2003 4521 Bom.

* General Clauses Act – S.27 – cheque dishonour – cause of action – presumption of service of notice – offence complete on failure of drawer to pay cheque amount within 15 days from date of giving notice – notice sent by post returned by accused as “unclaimed” – period of 15 days commences from such date – notice is presumed to have been served – failure of accused to rebut presumption – accused is guilty of offence.
AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 (8) Supreme Today 608 (K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan)

* Offence under s. 138 – “Stop Payment” instructions given by accused after issuance of cheque – does not clear away offence committed – complaint alleging commission of offence cannot be quashed on basis of such instructions.
1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 64(1) (Bhupendra v. Prtihviraj)

* Permission to examined counsel of complainant – not granted – does not amount to denial of opportunity to accused to lead his defence.
2003 Cr.L.J. 2124 HP (Vijay Kumar Sethi v. Bhupinder Singh)

* Cr.P.C. S. 254(2) - Request of accused to send cheque to expert to tally signature – No denial of signature at early stage – discreation vested in court to turn down unmeritied requests made with delibrate intentiont to protract the proceeding.
Cr.L.J. 2004 3827 Kerala