Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “….cheque was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground that the respondent had issued instructions to stop payment…. the High Court and the learned Magistrate treated the proof adduced by the respondent, namely, the letter, denying the liability and that some other person is liable as sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act…. To fulfil the objective, the Legislature while amending the Act has made the following procedure:
"(i) Under Section 138 a deeming offence is created.
(ii) In Section 139, a presumption is ingrained that the holder of the cheque received it in discharge of liability.
(iii) Disallowing a defence in Section 140 that drawer has no reason to believe that cheque would be dishonoured.
(iv) An explanation is provided to Section 138 to define the words "debt or other liability" to mean a legally enforceable debt or other liability."….
Both the Courts, in our view, failed to consider the important aspect as to the stop payment instructions issued by the respondent. Ordinarily, the stop payment instructions are issued to the Bank by the account holder when there is no sufficient amount in the account….
Both the Courts below have ignored the admission of the liability by the respondent who stated that the liability did exist but he was not responsible for it. While considering this, the Courts below treated the proof adduced by the respondent, namely, letter denying liability and that some other person is liable for it, as sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act….
Certain comments were made by the High Court in regard to the relationship of the parties. For the cases filed under Section 142 of the Act for offence committed under the Act the relationship between the drawer and the drawee is not material because the liability admitted is one which can be legally enforced by way of suit…..”
No comments:
Post a Comment