Article 20(2) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300 – Cheque bounce case – Double jeopardy -- Two complaints on same allegations – One complaint for offence under NI Act and other under IPC on same set of allegation – Maintainability of -- Matter referred to larger bench to answer the following questions: (1) Whether the ratio of the judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri, (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (2011) 2 SCC 703 lay down the correct law? or The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (2012) 7 SCC 621 as followed in M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons Crl Appeal No. 1285 of 2015, decided on 28.09.2015 which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct proposition of law? (2) Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial?

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2022

Article 136 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act -- Upheld by Supreme Court – Compromise/ Settlement between parties – Recalling of order -- In view of the statement made and as full payment has been made along with compensation, order recalled and the special leave petition restored to its original number – Leave granted, impugned order upholding the conviction of the appellant would be treated as settled and compounded -- Appeal allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 08.08.2022

Article 136 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Security deposit cheque – Quashing of Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – High Court quashed the complaint -- Dispute between the parties regarding the quality of the material supplied – Respondent/ accused made a complaint in writing of the defective material and then stopped the payment – Respondent has already filed a Civil Suit for damages – Held, the issues between the parties can be effectively resolved through Civil Suit only – Petitioner shall be at liberty either to file counter claim or a separate suit in accordance with law – Observations made by the High Court in its impugned order shall have no bearing on the outcome of the Civil Suit.

(SC) Decided on: 22.07.2022

Article 136 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- In conformity with the settlement requisite payment accepted -- It does appear appropriate to accept the terms of settlement between the parties and allow the compounding of offence – Orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court are set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 05.07.2022

Article 21 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 374 – Cheque bounce case – Appeal against conviction – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of amount of fine or compensation – Interpretation of -- Section 374 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any condition for admission of an appeal – Deposit of 20% of the compensation amount under no circumstances can be interpreted to be a condition pre-requisite for availing the right of appeal -- Imposition of any condition at the time of suspending of sentence may be a different matter failing which the order suspending sentence may be vacated -- While giving a wider connotation to Article 21 of Constitution of India, it can even be said that depriving a convict of his right to appeal by imposing any pre-requisite for availing his statutory right to challenge conviction in a higher Court would amount to depriving his liberty without adhering to the established procedure of law

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Article 21 -- Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Article 20(2) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300 -- Second Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Double jeopardy -- Trial court convicted the accused – Appellate Court acquitted the accused solely based upon Yogendra Pratap Singh’s case, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 550 -- Hon’ble Apex Court held in that case, where the complaint was filed before the expiry of the period 15 days stipulated in the notice, the Court cannot take the cognizance thereof, however, the second complaint on the same cause of action has been held to be maintainable and the delay in filing such complaint shall be deemed to have been condoned -- Held, it cannot be said that the filing of the second complaint and passing of the summoning order therein, amounts to double jeopardy to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.01.2020

Article 141 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 145 – Cheque bounce case – Stare Decisis -- Accused’s evidence by way of affidavit – Permissibility of – Accused, while appearing as his own witness in defence does not have any right to lead the evidence by way of affidavit – Held, even if the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Indian Bank Association 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 598 is taken to be suggesting contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd., 2010(1) JT 259, then also, it is the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd., which shall hold the field, being earlier in point of time and having been delivered by a Bench of equal strength.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.02.2019

Article 21 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque -- Complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act – Speedy disposal of cases -- Directions given that : (1) Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons. (2) MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant. Court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby Court to serve notice to the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If the summons is received back un-served, immediate follow up action be taken. (3) Court may indicate in the summon that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, Court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest. (4) Court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section 251Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for re-calling a witness for cross-examination. (5) The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in Court. Witnesses to the complaint and accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court. All the Criminal Courts in the country dealing with Section 138 cases to follow the above-mentioned procedures for speedy and expeditious disposal of cases falling under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(SC) Decided on: 21.04.2014

Article 20(1) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300(1) -- Double jeopardy – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Trial and punishment under Section 420 IPC – Permissibility of – Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution -- While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once' -- Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts – Held in the case although the offences are different but the facts are the same -- Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies -- Consequently, the prosecution u/s 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2011

Article 227 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Dishonour of Cheque -- Prosecution of the Company/ Directors – SICA proceedings -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Section only creates an embargo against disposal of assets of the company for recovery of its debts -- Purpose of such an embargo is to preserve the assets of the company from being attached or sold for realisation of dues of the creditors -- Section does not bar payment of money by the company or its directors to other persons for satisfaction of their legally enforceable dues -- Section 22 SICA does not create any legal impediment for instituting and proceeding with a criminal case on the allegations of an offence u/s 138 of the NI Act against a company or its Directors.

(SC) Decided on: 23.02.2000

Article 227 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986), Section 22-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Dishonour of Cheque -- Prosecution of the Company/ Directors – Company declared Sick -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- In a case in which the BIFR has submitted its report declaring a company as ‘sick’ and has also issued a direction u/s 22-A restraining the company or its directors not to dispose of any of its assets except with consent of the Board then the contention raised that a criminal case for the alleged offence u/s 138 NI Act cannot be instituted during the period in which the restraint order passed by the BIFR remains operative cannot be rejected outright -- Whether the contention can be accepted or not will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case -- For instance, before the date on which the cheque was drawn or before expiry of the statutory period of 15 days after notice, a restraint order of the BIFR u/s 22-A was passed against the company then it cannot be said that the offence u/s 138 NI Act was completed -- In such a case it may reasonably be said that the dishonoring of the cheque by the bank and failure to make payment of the amount by the company and/or its Directors is for reasons beyond the control of the accused -- In such circumstances it would be unjust and unfair and against the intent and purpose of the statute to hold that the Directors should be compelled to face trial in a criminal case.

(SC) Decided on: 23.02.2000