Negotiable Instruments Offences
What are Negotiable Instruments?
Negotiable instruments are written documents guaranteeing the payment of a specific amount of money, either on demand or at a set time. Common examples are:
Cheque
Promissory Note
Bill of Exchange
Relevant Laws:
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 governs offences related to negotiable instruments in India.
Key Offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act:
Section 138 - Dishonour of Cheque for insufficiency of funds
If a cheque issued for payment bounces due to insufficient funds or other reasons, it constitutes a criminal offence.
Section 139 - Presumption in favor of holder
Presumes cheque was issued for discharge of debt or liability.
Section 141 - Offences by companies
When a company commits an offence, responsible officers can be held liable.
Section 143 - Arrest of drawer or issuer
Procedure for arrest under cheque bounce cases.
Sections 139 to 147 provide procedural safeguards and details.
🧑⚖️ Important Case Laws on Negotiable Instruments Offences
1. K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999)
Citation: AIR 1999 SC 3764
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Cheque was dishonored and the drawer argued the case was civil, not criminal.
Judgment:
Court held that dishonour of cheque is a criminal offence under Section 138.
Explained that cheque bounce cases are distinct from civil debt recovery and require criminal prosecution to curb cheque dishonour.
Emphasized timely compliance with statutory notices before filing complaint.
Significance:
Established the criminal nature of cheque dishonour offence.
Clarified that defences available in civil suits don’t absolve criminal liability.
2. M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (1970)
Citation: AIR 1970 SC 2030
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Dealt with whether a promissory note can be construed as a cheque.
Judgment:
Distinguished between promissory notes and cheques based on definitions under the Act.
Held that promissory notes are not covered under Section 138 (which applies only to cheques).
Significance:
Helped define scope of Section 138 as restricted to cheque dishonour only.
Clarified that offences related to other negotiable instruments must be separately dealt with.
3. B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995)
Citation: AIR 1995 SC 2348
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Case on applicability of Section 138 to cheque issued by public officials.
Judgment:
Held that Section 138 applies uniformly to all cheque issuers, including government officials.
Arrests and prosecution should be in accordance with procedure.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the universal applicability of cheque dishonour provisions.
Protected government officials from arbitrary arrests without following due process.
4. Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001)
Citation: AIR 2001 SC 3896
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Issue of whether presumption under Section 139 applies only in cases where cheque is issued in discharge of debt or liability.
Judgment:
Held that Section 139 creates a presumption in favor of the holder, but the accused can rebut by proving otherwise.
The burden of proof shifts to the accused to establish that cheque was not issued for debt discharge.
Significance:
Clarified the burden of proof in cheque bounce cases.
Helped courts balance interests of complainants and accused.
5. M/s. S.K. Chopra v. State of Punjab (1976)
Citation: AIR 1976 SC 1792
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Case involving offences committed by company officials in issuing bad cheques.
Judgment:
Held that under Section 141, officers responsible for the company’s actions can be held criminally liable.
Directors and managers can be prosecuted if they had knowledge and consent.
Significance:
Established liability of company officers in cheque dishonour cases.
Strengthened enforcement against corporate cheque frauds.
🔍 Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Legal Issue | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) | Criminality of cheque dishonour | Dishonour of cheque is criminal offence |
| M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (1970) | Scope of Section 138 | Applies only to cheques, not promissory notes |
| B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) | Applicability to officials | Section 138 applies uniformly |
| Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) | Burden of proof | Presumption under Section 139 shifts burden to accused |
| M/s. S.K. Chopra v. State of Punjab (1976) | Corporate liability | Officers of companies liable under Section 141 |
🧠 Conclusion
Offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, especially Section 138, have been judicially recognized as serious criminal offences designed to maintain the sanctity of cheque payments in commercial transactions. The judiciary has balanced the rights of the payee to receive timely payment and the rights of the drawer to a fair hearing, ensuring procedural safeguards.
The above cases form the cornerstone of cheque bounce jurisprudence, clarifying the criminal nature, scope, liability, and procedural safeguards for negotiable instruments offences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments