138 Ni Act Indian Law

(c) judicial settlement, including settlement by Lok Adalat; or Even if collection is a crime, it is not necessary to prove mens rea like any other crime. Parliament`s intention to include this section in the Exchangeable Instruments Act was to provide security to the payment mechanism. The penalty introduced under the section would further reduce the risk of fraud and fraud. In so far as Article 421, in its request for a decision under Article 359, must be interpreted under that article as meaning that, subject to Article 421(1), the words and figures `or an assessment of costs under Article 359` had been inserted after the words and figures `pursuant to Article 357`. It is true that section 138 has created many cases that have accumulated in the courts, but decriminalization is not the solution. Investors` credibility would be undermined if there were no cure for disgraced cheques. Instead of people being interested in the investment, another person can benefit from it. The provisions of section 138 do not allow anyone to take unfair advantage of it because of the sentence. If there was no punishment, the other person would be free and the situation could enjoy all the benefits. The decriminalisation of Article 138 would destabilise the creditor. There would be a cascade effect and the whole system of negotiable instruments would prove to be useless. If a civil action or fair trial contains some, but not all, elements of the criminal proceedings, they are classified as quasi-criminal. In this type of trial, the court may punish a defendant for his or her acts or omissions, as if it were a criminal case.

Quasi-criminal proceedings include proceedings related to violations of the law or regulations, proceedings in family courts, motor vehicle prosecutions, administrative offences, psychiatric matters and fair proceedings such as contempt of court proceedings, pleadings, etc. In quasi-criminal proceedings, ordinary imprisonment is provided for in place of the debtor`s prison. “What happens if the complainant challenges either the aggravation of the offence under section 147 of the Ni Act or the withdrawal of the complaint under section 257 of the CRPC?” The answer to this question can be found in a Supreme Court judgment in the case “M/S. Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & ANR. v. Kanchan Mehta` [Criminal Appeal No. 1731 of 2017]. The Honourable Supreme Court has determined that if the court is satisfied that the plaintiff has been properly compensated and that it is in the interests of justice, it may, at its discretion, terminate the proceedings and dismiss the defendant even without consent. within the legal period, despite receipt of notification of the case of cheque dishonour, gives rise to the presumption of illegibility on the part of the issuer and to the suspicion of the credibility of the negotiable instrument. To avoid this and maintain confidence in banking and business operations, section 139 has been incorporated into the Act.

This provision creates a compelling presumption that a cheque that is the subject of section 138 of the Act was received by the cheque holder in whole or in part to satisfy a legally enforceable debt or liability. A court acts on the basis of that presumption and it is for the issuer to rebut the presumption and establish the contrary on the basis of evidence. Since section 138 of the Act creates a criminal offence and the Criminal Provisions Act must be interpreted strictly so that no one can be prosecuted in an ingenious, insidious or strategic manner. The Australian legal system introduced the Cheque Act 1986 to deal with cases of cheque bounce requiring civil remedies. The beneficiary has the possibility to bring a civil action for reimbursement of damages. “Withdrawal from a cheque account for insufficient funds, etc. – Where a cheque has rejected claims and has ruled that the moratorium under section 14 of the Code applies only to the entity against which insolvency resolution proceedings within the meaning of the Code are commenced. The application of the moratorium does not protect natural persons charged under article 141 of the Act and they continue to be legally liable under the provisions of the Act. Thus, the vicarious liability of the management would not end with the dissolution and revival of the company. This decriminalization of article 138 will counteract the main reason for the application of this law.

This would mean encouraging perpetrators and more cases of financial fraud. 18.3. The procedure for hearing cases under Chapter XVII of the Act must normally be summarized. The discretion of the judge, subject to the second reservation in article 143, to find that it was not desirable to hear the case summarily, since a sentence of more than one year is to be imposed, must be exercised after taking into account the additional fact that, in addition to the custodial sentence provided for in article 357, paragraph 357 of the Court, the judge must be allowed to rule on the matter. 3 Cr.P.C.6 for the award of appropriate compensation with a penalty for default under § 64 IPC and with other recovery powers under § 431 Cr.P.C.7 With this approach, a custodial sentence of more than one year may not be required in all cases.

Written by

Vivamus vel sem at sapien interdum pretium. Sed porttitor, odio in blandit ornare, arcu risus pulvinar ante, a gravida augue justo sagittis ante. Sed mattis consectetur metus quis rutrum. Phasellus ultrices nisi a orci dignissim nec rutrum turpis semper.