Ms Money:
Cheque bounced?
Mr Banker:
Madam, you can seek help by filing a suit under Section 138…
It is a widely accepted norm in India that if a cheque is dishonoured
then the person can get relief through legal court proceedings under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As easy as it may sound, Section
138 is not a ‘Brahmāstra’
for all
cheque bounce cases.
In the present case, the Bombay High Court did not provide relief
in the cheque dishonour case. The judgement specifically states that “No doubt cheque is a negotiable instrument
which is transferable and negotiable; the presumption under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act can be drawn only when the pre-conditions are
satisfied. The complainant unilaterally put dates
on the cheques without the authority of the accused and even by not informing
him. So, it amounts to material alterations. If it is so such negotiable
instrument becomes void".
The complainant is one of the partners in a
partnership firm (“the financier”) who is the appellant. In 2003, the financier
gave a loan of Rs. 1 crore to the accused (“the developer”) so that he could
pay the consideration to the owner of the property. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for
repayment was entered between the two parties, wherein the developer had issued
two cheques which were not complete in all respect (i.e. the cheques did not mention
the name of the payee and were undated). The developer could not complete the construction
of the building in time and by way of a civil suit has prayed for an extension of time for
recovery of the amount by the financier based on the MoU. The two cheques were
deposited by the financier in 2007, after filing the Civil Suit the developer
against the financier, which was returned unpaid. Hence, the financier filed
two complaints in the trial court which acquitted the developer. The conclusion
drawn by the trial court is when the suit was pending how the developer can
give authority to the financier to put the name of the payee and the date on
the cheques. Hence the present appeals.
The High Court considered
the reasoning given by the trial Court for concluding the acquittal. The
material question was whether the financier was justified in putting the name
of the payee and the date on the cheques.
The
court observed that putting the name of the payee cannot be held to be objectionable
for the reason that they were handed over to the financier only.
For
putting the date on the cheques the court referred to section 87 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act which authorizes alteration in two contingencies: -
(a) If
it is with the consent of the parties.
(b)
Even if the party does not give consent if the alterations are done to carry
out the common intention of the parties.
The court noted that neither
of these contingencies exists to authorize the financier to put in dates on the
cheques. The financier has not stated that those dates were put in as
instructed by the developer. The circumstances suggest that there was a dispute
filed in Civil Court by the developer for extension of the time and has not
consented to the financier to deposit those cheques. The financier unilaterally
put in dates on the cheques without the authority of the developer and even by
not informing him. So, it amounts to material alterations which render such a negotiable
instrument void. Hence prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act cannot be initiated in the case of M/s. Pinak Bharat and Company v. Anil Ramrao Naik (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1630 and 1631 of 2011,
Bombay High Court)