Negotiable Instruments Act Half-Yearly Digest: January - June, 2025

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT S. 148 NIAct | Condition Imposing 20% Deposit Of Compensation Must Not Be Unjust Or Deprive Right To Appeal: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7574 of 2025] The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that while passing an order imposing the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court has to consider that such a condition won't be unjust or would deprive the individual's right of appeal. In doing so the court said that the imposition of the condition is not mandatory and the court has the discretion to reduce or exempt it in appropriate cases. ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT [S.138 NI Act] While Considering Suspension Of Sentence, Court Must See If Case Falls Under Any Exceptions: Andhra Pradesh HC Reiterates Case title: Smt. Mekala Sudha Prameela Kantha vs. State of AP and Anr. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a plea for suspension of sentence is generally sought without any conditions, and when an accused seeks a blanket order like this, the responsibility is cast on the Court to determine whether the case falls under an exception. Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi was hearing a cheque bouncing case, wherein the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court under section 138 of the NI Act, and sentenced to one year imprisonment along with compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs, which is also the cheque amount. An appeal was filed against the order, and the sessions court suspended the trial court's order on the payment of 20% of the compensation. S.138 NI Act | Lok Adalat Award In A Criminal Case For Cheque Dishonour Can Be Executed By Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh HC Case title: Rathi Vasudeva Rao vs. PVRM Patnaik The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that an award passed by the Lok Adalat concerning a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is executable by a Civil court. It referred to Supreme Court's decision in K.N.Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.D.Shaji (2012) where the apex court had examined the Legal Services Act and had held that, "In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that court. The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and a criminal court. Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court". BOMBAY HIGH COURT S.138 NI Act | Trial Can Proceed In Absence Of Accused If He Fails To Appear And Doesn't Seek Exemption From Personal Attendance: Bombay HC Case title: Navneet Singh Gogia & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. (Criminal Revision Application No.70 Of 2023) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 29 The Bombay High Court has observed that a Magistrate is justified in proceeding with a trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) in the absence of the accused and without recording a statement under Section 313 CrPC, if the accused or their advocate has not been attending the trial or the accused has not sought for dispensing personal attendance. Justice S. M. Modak observed that before excising such power, the Trial Court could consider the following factors: “a) for how many occasions accused has remained absent b) steps taken by the complainant to secure presence of the accused. c) reason why presence could not be secured. d) whether all modes permissible as per law were exhausted.” CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT Section 138 NI Act | Infirmity In Cheque Return Memo Does Not Render Entire Trial For Cheque Dishonour A Nullity: Chhattisgarh HC Reiterates Case Title: Tulshi Steel Traders Propritor Pushpendra Kesharwani v. Purva Construction Propritor -Mitrabhan Sahu The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated held that even if there is an infirmity in the cheque return memo, it would not render the entire trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour as nullity. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas in his order observed that the trial court in the instant case had held that the cheques were given towards liability not as security as the accused is unable to rebut the same and could not adduce substantive evidence to affirm his stand that the cheques were given towards security. "Thus, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, 1881 is held to be in favour of complainant, therefore, merely due to no seal and signature of cheque return forwarding memo by the bank, the finding of the trial Court that no presumption regarding...

Negotiable Instruments Act Half-Yearly Digest: January - June, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags