Legal Reference Library

The Calcutta High Court, in M.K. Products vs. Blue Ocean Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors., has said that a complainant cannot challenge the order of acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgement delivered by Justice Sankar Acharyya dealt with the question of whether an acquittal in a case of dishonour of cheque, instituted on a complaint, could be challenged at Sessions Court without the grant of special leave by the High Court. Relying on the Kerala High Court decision in Omana Jose vs. State of Kerala and Others (which in turn discusses the principles in case Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration), the court reached the decision to uphold the impugned order. The relevant observations from the Kerala High Court’s judgement in that matter which the Calcutta High Court relied upon were: After the introduction of the definition of ‘victim’ in Secti...

A 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Econ Antri Ltd. Vs. Rom Industries Ltd. & Anr. has recently answered a reference whether for calculating the period of one month which is prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose?. While answering the reference, the Supreme Court held as under: On 13/10/2006, while granting leave in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.211 of 2005, this Court passed the following order: “In our view, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in the case of Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 1 requires reconsideration. Orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice may be obtained for placing this matter before a larger Bench.” Pursuant to the above order, this appeal is placed before us. 2. Since the referral order states that the judgment of this Court in Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securiti...

The Supreme Court in  MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan  has  held that prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of the cheque is also permissible so long as the same satisfies the requirements stipulated in the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The present case overrules  Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar (1998) 6 SCC 514  which laid down that cause of action under Section 138 arose only once and  if the concept of successive causes of action were to be accepted the same would make the limitation under Section 142(b) otiose. In  Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar  (1998) 6 SCC 514, this Court was dealing with a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in which the complainant had, after dishonour of a cheque issued in his favour, taken steps to serve upon the accused-drawer of the cheque a notice under clause (b) of proviso to...