Facts of the case:
In the case on hand, the Appellant advanced a sum of INR 2 Crores to the Respondent No. 2 as a loan who had assured that the same shall be repaid to him at a later date. In lieu of the sum advanced, the Respondent No. 2 issued six cheques aggregating the advanced amount as ‘security’ towards repayment of the loan.
Thereafter, when the loan was not repaid within the agreed time, the Appellant presented the cheques for payment but the same were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the Respondent No. 2’s bank account. Accordingly, the Appellant issued a legal notice, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”). Further, since the Respondent No. 2 had taken money from the Appellant on the assurance that the same would be returned, but deceived the Appellant, the Appellant contended that Respondent No. 2 had cheated him and accordingly filed complaints under both section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 138 of the NI Act. .
The Learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaints and issued summons to Respondent No. 2. Moreover, the Learned Magistrate rejected Respondent No. 2’s miscellaneous petition seeking discharge from the criminal proceedings. Thereafter, the Jharkhand High Court set aside the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court for the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble High Court.
Issues:
Whether under the present proceedings an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is made out, as the dishonourment alleged is of the cheques which were issued by way of ‘security’ and not towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt.
Held:
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Justice MR Shah and AS Bopanna held that if a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount within a specified timeframe and issues cheques as a security to secure such repayment and if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheques which are issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences under Section 138 and the other provisions of the NI Act would apply. Hence, the Supreme Court restored the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate which rejected the petition for discharge by the accused.
Comments:
In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court whilst stating that a cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a ‘worthless piece of paper under every circumstance’, dealt with a very important issue about dishonour of cheques which are given towards security. In the cases of dishonour of cheques several times the accused takes the defence cheque dishonoured was given towards ‘security’ and hence S. 138 NI Act is not attracted. However, this case lays down a very important ratio that the cheque given towards ‘security’ for loan if dishonoured will attract S. 138 NI Act, in case at the date of presentation of the cheque, the loan was matured for repayment and was not paid by any other mode before the cheque was presented for encashment.
Leave a Reply