Judicial Interpretation Of Section 138 Ni Act Offences
Section 138 NI Act: Overview
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a crucial provision dealing with dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds or other reasons. It provides a criminal remedy to a payee or holder when a cheque issued for payment is dishonoured due to insufficient funds or the account being closed.
Essential Ingredients of Section 138 Offence:
A cheque must be drawn for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
The cheque must be presented to the bank within the validity period.
The cheque must be dishonoured due to insufficient funds or account issues.
The payee must give a written demand notice to the drawer within 30 days of the cheque’s return.
The drawer fails to make the payment within 15 days of receiving the notice.
The offence is compoundable but non-bailable.
Judicial Interpretation of Section 138 NI Act: Case Laws
1. K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) — Supreme Court of India
Facts: The accused challenged the conviction under Section 138 alleging that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the cheque must be drawn for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The term “debt or liability” should be a “legal” one, not a mere moral obligation.
Significance: Clarified the requirement that Section 138 applies only where a legally enforceable debt exists, distinguishing it from cases of mere gifts or unenforceable promises.
2. M.S. Narayana Menon v. Standard Chartered Bank (2001)
Facts: The issue was whether the drawer of the cheque must be the account holder.
Judgment: The court clarified that the cheque must be drawn on a valid bank account of the drawer; if the cheque is drawn on a closed or nonexistent account, the offence under Section 138 applies.
Significance: Emphasized that the drawer must have an operative account; a cheque drawn on a closed account results in dishonour, triggering Section 138.
3. S. Krishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1973)
Facts: The accused issued a cheque that was dishonoured, but the court had to decide if there was a legally enforceable debt.
Judgment: The court held that the cheque must be issued for a pre-existing debt or liability; an agreement to pay in the future or a loan without due date may not qualify.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that the liability should be existing or current at the time of cheque issuance.
4. N. Rajendran v. J. Jayalakshmi (1996)
Facts: The accused argued that there was no notice given as required under Section 138.
Judgment: The Supreme Court emphasized the strict compliance requirement of sending a written notice within 30 days of dishonour and failure to pay within 15 days.
Significance: Underlined the procedural safeguards and mandatory nature of the notice in triggering criminal liability.
5. R. K. Verma v. A. K. Jaiswal (2003)
Facts: The drawer contended that the cheque was issued as security or in anticipation of future liability.
Judgment: The court ruled that Section 138 requires the cheque to be issued for discharge of existing debt; issuance of cheque as security does not attract Section 138.
Significance: Distinction drawn between cheque issued for existing debt versus cheque issued as collateral or security.
Summary Table of Key Points
| Case | Key Judicial Interpretation |
|---|---|
| K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan | Section 138 applies only to legally enforceable debts. |
| M.S. Narayana Menon v. Standard Chartered Bank | Cheque must be drawn on an operative bank account. |
| S. Krishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy | Debt/liability must be existing at the time of cheque issuance. |
| N. Rajendran v. J. Jayalakshmi | Strict compliance with notice requirements is mandatory. |
| R. K. Verma v. A. K. Jaiswal | Cheque issued as security not covered under Section 138. |
Conclusion
Section 138 NI Act is a powerful legal tool for protecting payees against cheque dishonour. The judiciary has clarified:
The cheque must be issued for existing, legally enforceable debts.
Strict compliance with procedure (timely notice and payment demand) is mandatory.
The drawer must have a valid bank account on which the cheque is drawn.
Cheques issued for security or future debts typically do not fall under Section 138.
This judicial interpretation ensures the provision is not misused but provides effective remedy for genuine cases of dishonour.
RELATED Blog
0 comments