SUMMARY

ON

RECENTTRENDSINSECTION138OFTHE
NEGOTIABLEINSTRUMENTSACT.

1] Negotiable Instruments have been used in commercial

worldforalongperiodoftimeasoneoftheconvenientmodesfor
transferring money. Development in Banking sector and with the
opening of new branches, cheque become one of the favourite
NegotiableInstruments. WhenchequeswereissuedasaNegotiable
Instruments, there was always possibility of the same being issued
without sufficient amount in the account. With a view to protect
draweeofthechequeneedwasfeltthatdishonourofchequehemade
punishableoffence.WiththatpurposeSec.138to142areinsertedby
Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments
clause(Amendment)Act,1988.Thiswasdonebymakingthedrawer
liable for penalties in case of bouncing of the cheque due to
insufficiencyoffundswithadequatesafeguardstopreventharassment
ofthehonestdrawer.
OBJECT
TheobjectofthisamendmentActis:
1. Toregulatethegrowingbusiness,trade,commerceand
Industrialactivities.
2. Topromotegreatervigilanceinfinancialmatters.

3. Tosafeguardthefaithofcreditorsindrawerofcheque.
(Krishnavs.Dattatraya2008(4)Mh.L.J.354(Supreme
Court)
2] However, it was found that punishment provided was
inadequate,theprocedureprescribedcumbersomeandthecourtswere
unabletodisposeofthecasesexpeditiouslyandintimeboundmanner.
Hence, the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous
provisionsAct2002)waspassed.Theprovisionsofsec.143to147were
newlyinsertedandprovisionsofsection148,141,142wereamended.

INGREDIENTS

3] The ingredients of the offence as contemplated under

Sec.138oftheActareasunder:

1. Thechequemusthavebeendrawnfordischargeofexisting
debtorliability.

2. Chequemustbepresentedwithin6monthsorwithin
validityperiodwhicheverisearlier.

3. Chequemustbereturnedunpaidduetoinsufficientfunds
oritexceedstheamountarranged.

4. Factofdishonourbeinformedtothedrawerbynotice
within30days.

5. Drawerofchequemustfailtomakepaymentwithin15
daysofreceiptofthenotice.

..3..

4] Amerepresentationofdeliveryofchqeuebytheaccused
wouldnotamounttoacceptanceofanydebtorliability.Complainant
hastoshowthatchequewasissuedforanyexistingdebtorliability.
Thus,ifchequeisissuedbywayofgiftanditgetsdishonouredoffence
u/s.138ofthewillnotbeattracted.
 PRESUMPTIONS
5] Thereis presumptions underSection118and139ofthe
NegotiableInstrumentsActinfavourofholderofthecheque.Until
contraryisproved,presumptionisinfavourofholderofchequethatit
wasdrawnfordischargeofdebtorliabilities.However,itisrebutable
oneandaccusedcanrebutitwithoutenteringintowitnessbox,through
crossexaminationof the prosecutionwitnesses. Complainantisnot
absolved from liability to show that cheque was issued for legally
enforceabledebtorliability.Burdenonaccusedinsuchcasewouldnot
beaslightasitisinthecasesundersec.114oftheEvidenceAct.In
caseofGoaPlastPvt.Ltd.vs.ShriChicoUrsulaD'Souza1996(4)
All MR 40 relations between accused and complainant were of
employeeandemployer. Noevidenceledtoshowthataccusedwas
liabletopayanydueorpartthereofandthusliabilitywasnotproved.
Similarly,itwasnotprovedthatthechequewasgiventowardsthose
liabilities.Accusedmuchearliertopresentationofchequestothe
..4..

Bankhadappraisedthecomplainantthatheisnotliabletopayany
amount,andtherefore,stoppedpayment. TheHon'bleBombayHigh
Courthadobservedthatcomplainantfailedtoprovethatthecheque
wasissuedfordischargeoflegalliabilities.

6] Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption in

regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally
recoverabledebtisnotamatterofpresumptionu/s139.Itmerelyraises
apresumptioninfavourofholderofthechequethatthesamehasbeen
issuedfordischargeofanydebtorotherliability.

7] Many times cheques are issued bearing no date or post

datedcheques.Theholderofthechequeentersthedate,andthereafter,
chequesarepresented. TheHon'bleBombayHighCourtincaseof
PurushottamdasGandhivs.ManoharDeshmukh2007(1)Mh.L.J.210
observed that inserting such date does not amount to tampering or
alterationbutbydeliveryofsuchundatedchequethedrawer
authorizestheholdertoinsertdate andtheperiodof6monthsfor
presentation of such cheque to the Bank would start from the date
whichbearsonthecheque.
(AshokBadwevs.SurendraNighojkarA.I.R.2001,S.C.1315)
8] Thereturnofchequeisitselfanindicationthatfundsare
notforthcoming.Thewordsrefertodraweroraccountclosedare
coveredundertheterminsufficientfunds.Thus,theliabilityofthe
..5..

drawer cannot be avoided if he closes the account and cheque is

dishonoured.Asafeguardhasbeenmadetopreventhastyactionisthat
thepayeeorholderinduecourseofthechequeshallmakeademand
forpaymentofamountcoveredbythechequebygivingnoticein
writingtothedrawerwithin30days.

9] Offenceu/s.138iscomputedonlywhenpaymentisnot
madebydrawer onexpiryof15daysafter serviceofthenoticeas
prescribedbyproviso(c)ofSec.138.

JURISDICTION
10] Consideringtheingredientsofsec.138referredabovethe
Hon'bleApexCourtincaseofK.Bhaskaranvs.ShankaranAIR1999,
SC3762, hadgivenjurisdictiontoinitiatetheprosecutionatanyof
thefollowingplaces.
1. Wherechequeisdrawn.
2. Wherepaymenthadtobemade.
3. Wherechequeispresentedforpayment
4. Wherechequeisdishonoured.
5. Wherenoticeisserveduptodrawer.

11] However,recentlyincaseof DashrathRupsinghRathod

vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in MANU /SC/ 0655/ 2014
interpreted variousprovisionsofSec.138ofNegotiableInstruments
Actandheld,
..6..

i) AnoffenceunderSection138oftheNegotiable
InstrumentsAct,1881iscommittednosooneracheque
drawnbytheaccusedonanaccountbeingmaintainedby
himinabankfordischargeofdebt/liabilityisreturned
unpaidforinsufficiencyoffundsorforthereasonthatthe
amountexceedsthearrangementmadewiththebank.
ii) Cognizanceofanysuchoffenceishoweverforbidden
underSection142oftheActexceptuponacomplaintin
writingmadebythepayeeorholderofthechequeindue
coursewithinaperiodofonemonthfromthedatethe
causeofactionaccruestosuchpayeeorholderunder
clause(c)ofprovisotoSection138.
iii) Thecauseofactiontofileacomplaintaccruestoa
complainant/payee/holderofachequeinduecourseif,
(a) thedishonouredchequeispresentedtothedraweebank
 withinaperiodofsixmonthsfromthedateofitsissue.
(b) Ifthecomplainanthasdemandedpaymentofcheque
amountwithinthirtydaysofreceiptofinformationbyhim
fromthebankregardingthedishonourofthechequeand
(c) Ifthedrawerhasfailedtopaythechequeamountwithin
fifteendaysofreceiptofsuchnotice.
iv) Thefactsconstitutingcauseofactiondonotconstitutethe
ingredientsoftheoffenceunderSection138oftheAct.
..7..
v) TheprovisotoSection138simplypostpones/defers
institutionofcriminalproceedingsandtakingof
cognizancebytheCourttillsuchtimecauseofactionin
termsofclause(c)ofprovisoaccruestothecomplainant.
vi) Oncethecauseofactionaccruestothecomplainant,the
jurisdictionoftheCourttotrythecasewillbedetermined
byreferencetotheplacewherethechequeisdishonoured.
vii) ThegeneralrulestipulatedunderSection177ofCr.P.C.
appliestocasesunderSection138oftheNegotiable
InstrumentsAct.Prosecutioninsuchcasescan,therefore,
belaunchedagainstthedrawerofthchequeonlybefore
theCourtwithinwhosejurisdictionthedishonourtakes
placeexceptinsituationswheretheoffenceofdishonour
ofthechequepunishableunderSection138iscommitted
alongwithotheroffencesinasingletransactionwithinthe
meaningofSection220(1)readwithSection184ofthe
CodeofCriminalProcedureoriscoveredbythe
provisionsofSection182(1)readwithSections184and
220thereof.
 NOTICE

12] Notice must be in writing informing that cheque is

returnedunpaidalsoademandofchqeueamountmustbemadeandit
..8..

should be within 30 days from receipt of information of dishonour.

Whennoticebyregisteredpostreturnedunclaimedthereispresumption
ofservice.
1. Rahulvs.ArihantFertilizers2008(4)Mh.L.J.365(SC)
2. K.Bhaskaranvs.ShankaranVidhyabalan1999AIR
SCW,3809.

13] Initially,itwasheldbyvariousHighCourtsand Apex

court that cheque may be presented severally within period of its
validity or within 6 months. However, once notice is served and
amount is not paid within stipulated period, the cause of action to
prosecutestarts.Thereafterthecomplaintistobefiledwithinperiod
of30days. However,incaseof MSRLeathersvs.Palaniappanand
others 2013,Cr.L.J.S.C. 1112. TheApexcourtheldthatfailureto
prosecute on basis of first default in payment does not result in
forfeitureofrightofholder/payeetoprosecute.NothingintheN.I.Act
that prohibits holder / payee of cheque from issuing fresh demand
noticeandthenlaunchingprosecution.Limitationofonemonthfrom
accrual of cause of action for taking cognizance u/s. 142 does not
militateagainstaccrualofsuccessivecauseofaction.

14] Thepayeeisnotpreventedfromcombingthecausesof
actionbycoveringmultipleinstancesofdishonourofchequesinsingle
notice,insuchacaseallthetransactionscoveredbynoticewouldbe
..9..
regardedasasingletransactionpermittingasingletrial.However,ina
case where cheques were issued on different dates, presented on
differentdatesandseparatenoticesareissuedinrespectofeachdefault.
Thetransactionscannotbeheldtobeasingletransaction.Section219
ofCr.P.C.willnotbeattractedtosuchcases. RajendraVs.Stateof
Mah.2007,(1)MhL.J.370.

15] The apex court in case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Shankaran

2000(1)Mh.L.J.193 observedthatgivingnoticeisnotthesameas
receipt of notice. Giving is a process of which receipt is
accomplishment. It is for the payee to perform formal process by
sendingnoticetothedraweratcorrectaddress......thepayeecansend
noticefordoinghispartofgivingthenotice.Onceitisdispatched,his
partisoverandnextdependsonwhatsendeedoes.Itiswellsettledthat
noticerefusedtobeacceptedbyaddresseecanbepresumedtohave
beenservedonhim.Wherenoticeisreturnedasunclaimedandnotas
arefused,itcanbedeemedtohavebeenservedonsendeeunlesshe
proves that it was not really served and that he was not really
responsibleforsuchnonservice.

16] TheHon'bleSupremeCourtincaseofSaketIndiaLtd.vs.
IndiaSecuritiesLtd.AIR1999,SC 1090 heldthattheperiodofone
monthistobereckonedaccordingtoBritishCalenderasdefinedinthe
GeneralClausesActandthedateonwhichcauseofactionarosemust
..10..

beexcludedforthispurpose. Whenneitherpostalacknowledgement
norpostalcoverisreceivedbackbypayeethepresumptionisthat
noticeisserved.(CentralBankofIndiavs.SaxenaPharma,AIR
1999SC3607.)

WHOCANFILECOMPLAINT

17] Payeeorholderinduecourseisacompetentpersontofile
complaint. Complaint must by corporal person capable of making
physicalappearanceinthecourt.Incaseofcompanyandfirmnatural
person should represent it. Complaint can be filed by Power of
AttorneyHolder.Itisnotrequirementthatthepersonwhosestatement
was taken on oath at the first instance should alone represent the
companytilltheproceedinghaveended.Evenifthepersonsentearlier
hadnoauthority,thecompanycanatsubsequentstagesendaperson
competent torepresent thecompany.( AssociatedCementCompany
Ltd.vs.Keshavanand(1998)91companycases3619SC.)

18] Itisfurtherobservedintheabovecasethatacomplaint
whichismadeinthenameandbehalfofcompanycanbemadebyany
officer of that company and that the section does not require that
complaintmustbesignedandpresentedonlybyauthorizedagentora
person empowered under the Articles of association or by any
resolutionoftheBoardofDirectors.
..11..

LIABILITYOFDIRECTORS/PARTNERS
19] Section141ofNegotiableInstrumentsActshowsthat
personwhoisinchargeorresponsibletothecompanyis ipsofacto
liableanddeemedtobeguilty.Onlyifoffenceiscommittedwithhis
consentconnivanceorduetoanyneglectonhispart. Similaristhe
case with any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the
company.Ifsuchpersonshowsthatoffencewascommittedwithouthis
knowledge or that he had exercised on due diligence toprevent the
commission of such offence, he may be immune from prosecution.
Similarly, Directors nominated by Central Government or State
Government byvirtueof their holdinganyofficeor employmentin
suchGovernmentorFinancialCorporationownedorcontrolledbysuch
Governmentarekeptoutsidethepurviewofsuchsection.

20] ItisprimarydutyoftheMagistratetofindoutwhetherthe
complainant has shown that accused persons falls into one of the
categoriesofpersonsenvisagedinsec.141. Whatisrequiredisthe
specificaccusation againsteachDirector of theroleplayedbyhim.
Onusisonthecomplainanttomakeoutprimafaciecasei.e.toshow
thataccusedwasatthetimeofcommissionoftheoffence,inchargeof
andresponsibletothecompany.SuchpersonneednotbeaDirector,
Manager,Secretaryorotherofficerofthecompany.Incaseof A.K.
Singhaniavs.GujratStateFertilizersCompanyLtd.2014,Cr.L.J.340
..12..
(SC).Theapexcourtfurtherobservedthatitisnotnecessarythat
complaintshouldcontainavermentsastowhowereinchargeand
responsibleforconductofthebusinessofcompany.Courtheldthatit
is sufficient if reading of complaint shows substance of accusation
disclosingnecessaryaverments.

21] Incaseof K.ShrikantSinghvs.NorthEastSecurityLtd.

andothers,J.T.2007(9)SC449. TheHon'bleApexcourtobserved
that vicariousliabilityonthepartofapersonmustbepleadedand
provedandnotinferred.
22] IncaseofAparnaAShahavs.ShethDevelopersPvt.Ltd.
2014(1)MhL.J.TheapexcourttookaviewthatJointAccountholder
cannotbeprosecutedunlesschequeissignedbyeachandeveryperson
whoisJointAccountholder.Inthiscasethechequewassignedby
husband of the appellant. The apex court quashed the proceeding
againsttheappellant. Courtobservedthatasanaturalcorollaryeach
andeveryjointaccountholdermustsignthechequebeforetheyare
consideredforcriminalactionundersec.138oftheN.I.Act.

23] IncaseofShushatnaJ.Sarkar&othervStateofMah.
2014(1)MhLJ214complaintwasnotshowingastowhatroleplayed
bypetitionerDirectorsintheallegedoffence. Theallegationswere
vagueandwerenotspecifyingroleofeachofthepetitioners.Itwas
observedthatavermentsincomplaintwerenotsufficientenoughto
..13..
make them vicariously liable for offence u/s 138. It was further
observedthat 'Itisnecessaryforthecomplainanttomakespecific
avermentsdisclosingroleofDirectorsintheallegedoffence.Criminal
offence, Criminalliabilitycanbefastenedonlyonthosewhoatthe
timeofcommissionofoffencewereinchargeofandwereresponsible
forconductofbusinessofcompany.......Itisobligatoryonthepartof
complainant to state in brief as to how and in what manner the
directors,whoaresoughttobemadeaccusedwereresponsibleforthe
conductofbusinessofcompanyatrelevanttime.

24] Earlieritwasobservedthatprosecutionofthecompanyis
not sinequanon fortheprosecutionoftheeitherpersonswhoarein
chargeofandresponsibleforthebusinessofcompanyoranyDirector,
Manager,Secretaryor other officersof company. However,finding
thatoffencewascommittedbycompanyissinequanonforconvicting
thoseotherpersons(AnilHadavs.IndianAcrylicLtd.(2002)of1999
Comp.Cases36(SC).However,recentlyincaseofAnilGuptavs.Star
IndiaPvt.Ltd.Co.&another2014Cr.L.J.3884 theHon'bleSupreme
Court laid down that only drawer of cheque falls within ambit of
sec.138oftheActwhetherhumanbeingorabodycorporateorevena
firm.....TheHon'bleApexcourtfurtherobservedthatwearrivedat
theirresistableconclusionthatformaintaintheprosecutionu/s141of
the
Act,arraigningofthecompanyasaaccusedistoimperative.The
Hon'bleApexcourtoverruledthedecisioninAnilKhada'scase
..14..
referredabove.

25] Cause of action arises when notice is served on the

drawer and drawer fails to make payment of the amount of cheque
within 15days. Limitationtofilecomplaintisonemonthfromthe
dateofcauseofaction.However,byAmendmentActof2002courtis
empoweredtotakecognizanceoftheoffenceevenifcomplaintisfiled
beyondonemonthbycondoningthedelayifsufficientcauseisshown.

Ithasbeenheldinvariousothercasesthatoffenceisnot
madeout
1. Whenchequereturnedasdefectiveone(Babulalvs.
Khilji1998(3)MhL.J.762)
2. Whennonoticeisgiventocompanyandchequeis
drawnbycompany(P.RajaRathinalmvs.Stateof
Maharashtra1999(1)Mh.L.J.815)
3. Chequeisgivenasagift.
4. Complainantwasnotapayee.
5. Signatureofdraweronthechequeisincomplete.(Vinod
 vs.Jahir2003(1)MhL.J.456.)

PUNISHMENT
26] Aftertheamendmentof2002theimprisonmentthatmay
beimposedmayextendtotwoyears,whilefinemayextendtotwicethe
amountofcheque. However,thetrialisconductedinsummaryway,
thenMagistratecanpasssentenceofimprisonmentnotexceedingone
yearandamountoffineexceedingRs.5,000/. Thereisnolimitation
forawardingcompensation.
..15..
27] Thesentenceshouldbesuchthatitgivespropereffectto
the object of the legislation. No drawer can be allowed to take
advantageofchequeissuedbyhimlightly.Apexcourthascautioned
againstimposingfleebitesentences.IncaseofSujantiSureshKumar
vs.Jagdeeshan2002Cr.L.J.1003 Priortotheamendmentof2002a
sentence of fine in excess of Rs.5,000/by Judicial Magistrate, First
ClassorMetropolitanMagistratewasheldtobeillegal.However,after
theamendmenttheMagistrateareempoweredtoimposefineexceeding
Rs.5,000/. Incaseof Dilipvs.KotakMahindraCompanyLtd.2008
(1) Mh L.J. 22 it was enunciated that the amount of compensation
sought tobeimposedmustbereasonableandnotarbitrary. Before
issuingadirectiontopaycompensationthecapacityoftheaccusedto
pay the same must be judged. An inquiry in this behalf even in
summarywaymaybenecessary. Subsection3ofSec.357doesnot
imposeanylimitationbutthepowersthereundershouldbeexercised
only in appropriate cases. Ordinarily it should be lesser than the
amount which can be granted by Civil Court upon appreciation of
evidence.Acriminalcaseisnotasubstitutionforcivilsuit.
 PROCEDURE

28] Section 142 of the N. I. Act creates bar against taking

cognizanceoftheoffenceu/s.138oftheN.I.Actexceptupon

..16..

complaintinwritingbypayeeorholderinduecourse.Complaintmay
beinstitutedbyPowerofAttorneyHolder. However,iftheholderof
thePowerofAttorneyhasmerelylodgedthecomplaintwithoutbeing
awareofthefacts,thenrecordingthestatementofthepayeebecomes
imperative.

29] Once Magistrate is satisfied that there is proper

compliance of the proviso to Sec.138 N. I. Act and jurisdictional
conditionsarefulfilled,Magistrateshallissuetheprocess.Serviceof
summonsbyspeedpostorapprovedcourierisrecognizedbySec.144
ofN.I.Act.Iftheaccuseddoesnotappearinresponsetothesummons
orremainabsentsubsequent,acoerciveprocessneedstobetakenby
thecourt.IncaseofBhaskarIndustriesLtd.vs.M/sBhiwaniDenim
andApparensLtd.2001AllM.R.(Criminal)1961).Theadvocatewho
appeared in absence of accused was allowed to plea on behalf of
accused.

30] Section 145 (1) of the Act permits the recording of

evidenceofcomplainantonaffidavit. Evenevidenceofaccusedand
witnessescanberecordedonaffidavit.Thiswasforexpeditedisposal
of the cases. The bank slips are held as a primary evidence and
admissibledirectly.
31] Theaccusedaregiveneffectiveopportunitytodefendthe

..17..

case.Consideringpresumptionsundersec.118and139oftheN.I.Act
effectiveopportunityistobegiventotheaccusedtocrossexaminethe
witnesses.

32] Itiscommonexperiencethatincasesu/s138ofN.I.Act
evidence is recorded by one Judicial Officer and before delivery of
Judgment he is transferred, in such situation the successor has to
proceed with denovo trial. However, in case of Mehsana Nagarik
Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. Shreeji CAB company ltd. and others 2014
Cr.L.J.1953. Theapexcourtheldthatifevidenceisrecordedinfull
andnotinsummarymanner,thenevidencerecordedbypredecessorcan
beactedupon.

33] ThoughtheprovisioncontainedinSec.143ofthe N.I.Act

providesthatcasesu/s.138aretobetriedinsummaryway,theyshould
be triedasaregularsummonscases. IfitappearstotheMagistrate
thatnatureofcaseissuchthatsentenceofimprisonmentforaterm
exceedingoneyearmayhavetobepassed,orthatitisforanyother
reasonsundesirabletotrythecasesummarily,Magistrateshallafter
hearingthepartiesrecordandordertothateffectandtrythecaseasa
regularsummonscase.

..18..
34] RecentlyincaseofIndianBankAssociationandothersvs.
UnionofIndia&othersreportedinAIR2014SupremeCourt2528,
generaldirectionshavebeengivenbytheApexcourt.Thedirections
areworthquotingandtheyareasunder:

1. MetropolitanMagistrate/JudicialMagistrate(MM/JM),on
thedaywhenthecomplaintunderSection138oftheAct
ispresented,shallscrutinizethecomplaintand,ifthe
complaintisaccompaniedbytheaffidavit,andthe
affidavitandthedocuments,ifany,arefoundtobein
order,takecognizanceanddirectissuanceofsummons.
2. MM/JMshouldadoptapragmaticandrealisticapproach
whileissuingsummons.Summonsmustbeproperly
addressedandsentbypostaswellasbyemailaddressgot
fromthecomplainant.Courtinappropriatecases,may
taketheassistanceofthepoliceorthenearbycourtto
servenoticetotheaccused.Fornoticeofappearance,a
shortdatebefixed.Ifthesummonsisreceivedbackun
served,immediatefollowupactionbetaken.
3. Courtmayindicateinthesummonsthatiftheaccused
makesanapplicationforcompoundingofoffencesatthe
firsthearingofthecaseand,ifsuchanapplicationis
made,Courtmaypassappropriateordersattheearliest.
..19..

4. Courtshoulddirecttheaccused,whenheappearsto
furnishabailbond,theensurehisappearanceduringtrial
andaskhimtotakenoticeunderSection251,Cr.P.C.to
enablehimtoenterhispleaofdefenceandfixthecasefor
 defenceevidence,unlessanapplicationismadebythe
accusedunderSection145(2)forrecallingawitnessfor
crossexamination.
5. Thecourtconcernedmustensurethatexaminationin
chief,crossexaminationandreexaminationofthe
complainantmustbeconductedwithintreemonthsof
assigningthecase.Thecourthasoptionofaccepting
affidavitsofthewitnesses,insteadofexaminingthemin
Court.Witnessestothecomplainantandaccusedmustbe
availableforcrossexaminationasandwhenthereis
directiontothiseffectbytheCourt.

SomeimportantprincipleslaiddownbytheHon'bleHigh
CourtsandApexCourtareasunder:

1. Chequetopaytimebarreddebtisenforceablebyvirtueof
section25(3)ofContractAct,(Kadirvs.Dattatraya2005
(3)MhL.J.1076)
2. Legalheirsofcomplainantcancontinuethecomplaint
(ReviSelvalvs.Navin2000(2)BombayCri.Cases,23.)
..20..

3. However,legalrepresentativesofaccusedcannotbe
madetofacetrial.(Smt.Dropadi@MayaShippivs.State
ofRajasthan2000(3)Crimes6045.)
4. Partpaymentmadedoesnotabsolvetothedrawerfrom
liability(RamnarayanMadanlalKhandelwarvs.
ProprietorDaulatEnterprise,2005(4)MhL.J.796)
5. Chequeissuedasasecurityareindischargeofliabilityas
 aguarantorattractsSec.138(ICBSLtd.vs.BeenaShabeer
2002AIRSCW3358)
6. Anyliabilitydoesnotincludeanyother'sliabilityunless
thereisagreementbetweendrawerandoriginaldebtor
(HintenSagarandanothervs.IMCLtd.Andanother2001
(3)MhL.J.659)
7. Demandingchequeamountinterest,damages,separately
inthenoticewouldnotinvalidatethenotice(Suman
Shettyvs.AjayA.ChudiwalAIR2000(SC)828.)
8. Asinglecomplaintinrespectofdishonouredchequesis
maintenablethoughconsolidatedsinglenoticeissentand
singlecomplaintismaintenable.(CharashniKumar
Talwanivs.M/s.MalhotraPoultries2014Cr.L.J.2908)

(P.M.Dunedar)
DistrictJudge1and
Addl.SessionsJudge,Gadchiroli.
 (P.M.Dunedar)
DistrictJudge1and
Addl.SessionsJudge,Gadchiroli.

O.W.No./2014.
DistrictCourt,Gadchiroli.
To, Date2.11.2014.

The

Subject: Submissionofreportforprematurereleaseunderthe14
Year RuleofPrisonersservinglifesentence.
Ref'nce:Yourletters

Sir,
Withreferencetothesubjectreferredabovetherequired
informationandopinionissubmittedasunder.

Hencesubmitted.
Yours,

Gadchiroli,
Date.10.2014. (P.M.Dunedar)
DistrictJudge1and
Addl.SessionsJudge,Gadchiroli.