Cheque bounce case -- Complaint through attorney -- Mother of the Applicant-complainant appeared as his general attorney after due permission from the Court on acceptance of her application to permit her to file complaint and pursue the same as attorney -- Maintainability of the complaint is well-proved on the record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Chit fund business – Legally enforceability of – Applicant/ complainant in her statement has deposed that she is not aware of the fact that chit fund business has been banned in Haryana and admits that she has been running the chit fund business without any license – Held, the liability or debt will not come under the ambit of Section 138 of the Act – Acquittal order of Trial Court and dismissal of appeal on the ground of maintainability, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.09.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Bahi entries – Evidential value of -- Bahi entries are not negotiable instruments of advancement of loan, such as, pronote, bonds and Bill of exchange etc., which can legally be enforceable, as contemplated by the NI Act -- Entry in the Bahi Khata merely is an admission by its maker in his own favour and it is only admissible in evidence if it is accepted by the opposite side (loanee) and not otherwise -- Such entries shall alone be not sufficient to charge any person with liability -- Commission agents used to obtain such blank/undated cheques from the Farmers as a security in good faith, not in lieu of any legal liability, to which, the court can take judicial notice of it -- Complainant cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the respondent u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Time barred debt – In case a cheque is issued for time barred debt and it is dishonoured, then, it cannot be termed to have been issued, in lieu of legally enforceable liability/debt within the meaning of section 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Money Lending License -- Complainant used to lend money on credit basis to different persons, but he did not possess any money lender's licence -- Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act, 1938 is applicable to the State of Haryana -- Section 4(2) postulates that no money lender shall carry on the business of advancing loans unless he gets himself registered under sub-section (1) -- Likewise, Section 3 of the Act posits that a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a loan or an application by a moneylender for the execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall be dismissed, unless the money-lender is registered and holds a valid license – Having a money lender's license is a condition precedent to advance the loan to the Farmers – Complainant cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the respondent u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Second notice – Cause of action – Respondent issued notices, although, the notice was duly served, the Respondent did not take any steps to file the complaint within the period prescribed – Held, a cheque may be presented several times within the period of its validity, the cause of action for a complaint u/s 138 of the Act arises but once, with the issuance of notice after dishonour of the cheque and the receipt thereof by the drawer – Ld. Magistrate erred in taking cognizance on the complaints filed on the basis of the second notices, High Court also wrongly affirmed the same – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 08.01.2010