Proprietorship Firm not made party – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order –Complaint reveals that the sole proprietary concern has not been arrayed as an accused, but only its sole proprietor has been arrayed as an accused – Petition allowed complaint u/s of the N.I. Act as well as, the summoning order both are quashed and set aside.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 09.08.2022 Pronounced on: 26.08.2022

Provision for deposit of 20% in complaint -- Substantive obligation -- Prospective in nature -- Section 143-A of the Act cast a substantive obligation upon the accused and thereby effect the substantive right of the accused -- Amendment is not applicable retrospectively, to pending cases; which arose from the default of the accused which has taken place before coming into force of this provision.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Provision for deposit of 20% in complaint -- Prospective in nature -- Section 143-A of the Act cast a substantive obligation upon the accused and thereby effect the substantive right of the accused -- Since the Amendment Act has not made the provision applicable retrospectively, specifically, to pending cases, hence, it cannot be applied retrospectively, to pending cases; which arose from the default of the accused which has taken place before coming into force of this provision.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Recovery of money under cheque -- A criminal prosecution is neither for recovery of money nor for enforcement of any security etc. -- Section 138 of the NI Act is a penal provision the commission of which offence entails a conviction and sentence on proof of the guilt in a duly conducted criminal proceedings -- Once the offence u/s 138 is completed the prosecution proceedings can be initiated not for recovery of the amount covered by the cheque but for bringing the offender to the penal liability.

(SC) Decided on: 15.02.2000