Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Criminology

Definitions

  • Criminology is the science of crime in all aspects.
  • Edwin H Sutherland
  • D R Cressey: Criminology is the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon.
  • Elliot M A Merill
  • D R Taft
  • Webster Dictionary
  • Jock Young formulated six dichotomies to understand criminal behavior:
    • Individual's behavior: Free vs Determinism
    • Functioning of social order: Consensus vs Coercion
    • Definition of Crime: Legal vs Social
    • Extent and Distribution of crime: Limited vs Extensive
    • Causes of crime: Individual vs Social
    • Policy towards criminals: Punishment vs Treatment

Causes of Crime

  • Social causes of crime
  • Economic causes of crime
  • Physical and mental causes of crime
  • Geographical causes of crime
  • Political causes of crime

Causation of Crime

  • Heredity and crime
  • Mental Disorder and Criminality
  • M' Naghten's Rule of Criminal Responsibility
  • Insanity under Indian Criminal Law
  • Bio-physical factors and criminality
  • Intelligence Testing and criminality
  • Personality aspects of criminals
    • Hooton's View
    • Sheldon's Views on Criminality
    • Donald Taft
    • Freud's theory of criminal behavior
    • Glueck's Psychiatric Theory of Crime
  • Psychological concept of crime
  • Aristotle's Four Laws of Association
  • Conflict Theory of Crime
  • Female Criminality - Gender-based explanations
  • Group Therapy

Sociological Theory of Crime

  • Sociological Theory of Criminal Behavior
  • Theory of Differential Association
  • Multiple Factor Approach to Crime Causation
    • Mobility
    • Culture Conflict
    • Family Background
    • Political Ideology
    • Religion and Crime
    • Economic conditions
    • Ecology of crime
    • Media influence
  • Crime in urban and rural areas
  • Neighborhood influences

Essential elements to prove a Tort

  • Existence of legal duty from defendant to plaintiff
  • Breach of duty
  • Damage as proximate result.

Related Case

  • City of Mobile v. McClure, 221 Ala. 51, 127 So. 832, 835.




Sunday, February 9, 2014



PROCEDURE FOR MUTATION/SUB-DIVISION OF PROPERTY
IN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX ONLY

List of Documents required for Mutation /Sub-division -

MUTATION
(A)  In case of Sale-deed:
1.      Copy of Sale-deed
2.      Application for mutation  with Rs.3/- Court fee stamp affixed on it
3.      Indemnity Bond on Rs.100/- Stamp Paper.
4.      Affidavit on Rs.10/- Stamp Paper.
5.      Clearance of up-to-date Property Tax.

(B)   In case of Death:
1.      Death Certificate
2.      Copy of Will or Succession Certificate.
3.      Indemnity Bond on Rs.100/- Stamp Paper.
4.      Affidavit on Rs.10/- Stamp Paper duly attested by Notary.
5.      Clearance of up-to-date Property tax.

(C)   In case of Power of Attorney:
1.      Copy of Power of Attorney.
2.      Copy of Will.
3.      Receipt of payment duly registered by Sub-Registrar.
4.      Application for mutation  with Rs.3/- Court fee stamp affixed on it
5.      Indemnity Bond on Rs.100/- Stamp Paper.
6.      Affidavit on Rs.10/- Stamp Paper.
7.      Clearance of up-to-date Property Tax.

As per departmental Instructions on the subject, in case of death, a copy of Will or succession certificate is required to ensure that there is no malpractice in mutation cases.  However, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that there is no malpractice in the claim of mutation, the following documents may only be insisted upon for the purpose of sub-division and/or mutation in respect of such properties:

(i)                 Death certificate of the original assessee.
(ii)               Affidavit together with No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs of the deceased or their successors in interest.
(iii)             Indemnity bond containing an undertaking of the executant that he shall indemnify the Corporation in the event of dispute arising from the mutation made upon his application.
(iv)             Rough site plans showing different portions of the building and the signatures/thumb impression etc. of the persons occupying these portions.


·         If entire building /plot has been sold, mutation may be allowed on payment of up-to-date dues.  In case of sale by agreement to sell on
Payment of Transfer duty on prevalent rates.
·         If a part of the building/plot has been sold, mutation may be allowed in the name of the purchaser on payment of up-to-date taxes for the portion purchased, Sub-division will, however, not be allowed if the sale is not through a registered document/instrument.
·         In case of inheritance of a property by more than one legal heirs, mutation/sub-division in the name of all the legal heirs may be allowed subject to clearance of up to date taxes by each of them for their respective portions.  However, sub-division will be allowed only if physical division exist.  The case of each legal heirs has to be decided independently regardless of payment or non-payment by others for their respective portions.
·          As per provisions of section 128 of DMC act, 1957 (as amended in 2003) whenever the title of any person, primarily liable for the payment of property taxes on any land or building, is transferred, the persons whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same is transferred shall give, within three-months, a notice of such transfer to MCD.  The notice has to be given by the transferor as well as the transferee.  If any notice under Section 126 (since repealed) is pending, the liability for the increased rate -able value after the date of transfer shall be that of the transferee.  As such, the transferee should ensure that either the pending proposals are decided, additional taxes are paid by the transferor. It is, therefore, required that whenever the transferees present documents for transfer, a letter is to be issued to the transferor inviting objections, if any, in respect of the claim for mutation and consider objections received, if any, within 15 days of the issue of such letter.  If no objection is received within 15 days, the property may be mutated in the name of the transferee, subject to fulfillment of other conditions.


·         As and when there is death of the person primarily liable for payment of taxes, the person on whom the title of the property devolves, should within six months of the death, apply to the MCD about the devolution of the property on the legal heirs so that property mutations takes place.  The person on whom the property devolves should be cautious in moving for transfer in municipal records as early as possible as there has been cases whereby some of the legal heirs got the property mutated in their names to the exclusion of others.

·         The mutation in the municipal records is for the purpose of payment of property taxes and it does not mean a legal title in the name of the person in whose name the property has been mutated in the municipal records.      

·         Transfer Duty: Prevalent rate of transfer duty is 3% of consideration amt.                                
·         Mutation fee:    However, under the DMC (Amendment) Act, 2003, for each apportionment, fee of Rs.100/- is to be paid, along with composition fee of Rs.50/-(wherever applicable).


As per latest Departmental Instruction No.1 issued vide No.Tax/A&C/PC/SAU/2005-06/7 dated 26.4.2005, on the subject, with a view to develop mutual trust with the tax payers and the department and also in order to facilitate the early disposal of the mutation applications, it is henceforth ordered that immediately, on receipt of the application for mutation/transfer of the particular property, the applications/requests should be got scrutinized/examined by the department in accordance with the instructions earlier issued from time to time on the subject and in case, if the application, so received, is in order and all required formalities such as payment of Transfer Duty, Composition Fee and clearance of dues where-ever is required and complete, the mutation may be allowed within 15 days of the receipt of the application under intimation the applicant.  Further, in case of any deficiency, a letter to the applicant must be sent within 15 days of the receipt of the application in the department and on receipt of the required information/documents called for, are submitted, the mutation case be processed further and final orders allowing the mutation are passed under intimation to the applicant within 15 days of the submission of the such documents/information.

























(SPECIMEN OF INDEMNITY BOND & AFFIDAVIT)
INDEMNITY
(on non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.100/-)

THIS DEED OF INDEMNITY is executed at_________________ this_______________
day of ___________200____ by Shri/Smt./Kumari/M/s___________________________
s/o/w/o/d/o Shri_________________________________________aged______________
resident of_______________________________________________________________
(hereinafter called the new assessee), which expression shall always include his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns in favour of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter called ‘the Corporation’), which expression shall include its heirs, executors, administrators and assigns.

WHEREAS Shri/Smt./Km.M/s_______________________________________________
is the recorded owner of property bearing Municipal No.__________________________
And has been the person primarily liable for making payment of property taxes leviable under the DMC Act to the Corporation.

AND WHEREAS the said Shri/Smt/Km._______________________________________
had died on_____________________________/has transferred the said property bearing
No.___________________________________________________ vide Registered Deed No.___________________________dated____________________ by way of sale/ perpetual lease/gift-dded/mortgage with possession/exchange of immovable property and the same New Assessee became the owner of the said property wholly/partly to the extent of ______________share therein distinctly shown in the plan submitted along with the application for mutation/sub-division.

AND WHEREEAS the New Assessee has now moved an application under Section 128 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (as amended in 2003), read with the Bye-laws made there -under for mutation/sub-division of the property referred to above, in respect of the portion of which he/she is now the owner.

AND WHEREAS pending final disposal of and decision on the aforesaid application, the Corporation has provisionally agreed to mutate/sub-divide the said premises in favour of the New Assessee for the purpose of levy/collection of property taxes (only) under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, on the following terms & conditions:

  1. That the New Assessee shall provide to the Corporation all the relevant documents and information on the basis of which the said mutation/sub-division is claimed.

  1. That the New Assessee shall also furnish a site plan of the premises distinctly showing the respective portion therein of which the New Assessee claims mutation/sub-division.
  2. That the New Assessee also agrees to the revision/re-assessment of the portion of the premises of which he/she is seeking mutation/sub-division provided that the same is otherwise warranted under the Act and the Bye-laws framed there -under.

  1. That the New Assessee also agrees that in case by allowing sub-division of the premises under reference if the rate -able value or any portion thereof is reduced to Rs.1000/- per annum below, the same shall be reckoned with and reasonably enhanced so as to bring the same out of the exemption limits;

  1. That the New Assessee agrees to make the payment of arrears of property taxes on the existing rateable values or the rateable values that may be fixed in the pending 126 proposals or the proposals to be issued hereinafter or the demand arising on the taking of any pending increase action or due to mistake in the calculation of taxes.  The New Assessee also agrees that he/she shall not agitate or object to the disposal of 126 proceedings (since repealed) already initiated against the previous owners; and

  1. That the New Assessee undertakes to indemnify the Corporation against all costs, damages, losses, claims etc. which the Corporation may have to suffer, undergo or pay as a result of mutation/sub-division of the property in the name of the New Assessee.

NOW, THEREFORE, THESE PRESENT WITNESSTH:

That in pursuance of conditions hereinbefore mentioned, which the New Assessee has accepted without any condition or reservation, the New Assessee hereby agrees to indemnify and keep harmless the said Corporation against all damages, losses, claims, costs etc. which the Corporation may have to suffer, undergo, incur or pay as a result of mutation/sub-division of property bearing No.___________________________________
As per plan attached with the application for mutation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the New Assessee, as aforesaid, has set and subscribed his hand on these presents, on the day, month and year first above written.



(Shri/Smt.)
New Assessee

Seal of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Signed and delivered by the within named
The New Assessee in the presence of:

____________________________________ (witness)

____________________________________ (witness) 
AFFIDAVIT

I,_________________________________S/o,D/o Sh.____________________________
Resident of__________________________________________ hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.         That the Property No._______________________________________________
was occupied by Shri/Smt._________________________________________________.

2.         That the said Shri/Smt.___________________________________________ has
expired on______________________________________________________________

3.         That the said Shri/Smt.___________________________________________ did not leave any Will registered or unregistered.

4.         That after the death of Shri/Smt.____________________________________ there are following legal heirs of the deceased:

  1. Shri/Smt._____________________aged_____years, relation_________________
  2. Shri/Smt._____________________aged_____years, relation_________________
  3. Shri/Smt._____________________aged_____years, relation_________________
  4. Shri/Smt._____________________aged_____years, relation_________________

5.         That the following legal heirs out of 4 above, have no objection to the mutation of the property in the names of Shri/Smt._________________________________________
& Shri/Smt.______________________________________________________________
  1. Shri/Smt.__________________________________________________________
  2. Shri/Smt.__________________________________________________________




DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified at New Delhi, this______________ day of_______________200_________that
The contents of above affidavit are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.



DEPONENT



AFFIDAVIT

I,_____________________________________S/o, D/o Shri_______________________
resident of______________________________________________________________
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.         That I am one of the legal heirs of Shri/Smt.______________________________

2.         That I do not have any objection if the Property No._______________________
is mutated in the names of Shri/Smt.__________________________________________
& Shri/Smt.______________________________________________________________


DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified at New Delhi, this___________ day of__________200_____ that the contents of above affidavit are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed thereof.



DEPONENT


Mutation of property

Mutation is the recording of a transfer of title of a property from one person to another in the revenue records. The documentation procedure to be followed and the fee payable vary from State to State. The mutation in the municipal records is for the purpose of payment of property tax, and it does not mean a legal title for the person in whose name the property has been mutated in the municipal records.

An application to the tahsildar on a plain paper, along with a non-judicial stamp of relevant value, has to be made.
Details to be furnished with application:
  •  Area in which the right has been acquired
  •  Description of the right acquired
  •  Name, parent's name, and address of the person from whom the right has been acquired
  •  Manner in which the right has been acquired
  •  Name, parent's name, and address of the person who has acquired the right
  •  Date on which the right was acquired
  •  Copy of document on the basis of which the mutation is sought - sale deed, Will etc
A proclamation is issued inviting objections to the proposed mutation and specifying the date, not less than 15 days from the date of the proclamation, up to which any objection to the mutation will be entertained. The Patwari submits his report in the prescribed format. The statements of the parties are recorded. The contents of the documents are matched with the recorded statements. In case no objections against the proposed mutation are received, it is sanctioned.
Any party aggrieved by an order of mutation can file an appeal before the Additional Collector (or the Deputy Commissioner) concerned within 30 days of the order.
Documents required for mutation:
In case of sale:
>> Copy of sale deed
>> Application for mutation with court fee stamp affixed on it
>> Indemnity bond on stamp paper of requisite value
>> Affidavit on stamp paper of requisite value
>> Receipt of up-to-date property tax payment
In case of Will:
>> Death certificate
>> Copy of Will or Succession Certificate
>> Indemnity bond on stamp paper of requisite value
>> Affidavit on stamp paper of requisite value attested my a Notary
>> Receipt of up-to-date property tax payment In case of Power of Attorney:
>> Copy of Power of Attorney.
>> Copy of Will
>> Receipt for payment registered with a sub-registrar
>> Application for mutation with court fee stamp affixed on it
>> Indemnity bond on stamp paper of requisite value
>> Affidavit on stamp paper of requisite value
>> Receipt of up-to-date property tax payment
Sometimes, an indemnity bond giving an undertaking that the executant indemnifies the municipal corporation in the event of a dispute arising from the mutation made upon his application is sought. A rough site plan showing the different portions of the building, with details of those occupying these portions, may also need to be furnished.
The prevalent rate of transfer duty on the consideration amount and the mutation fee should be paid. If an entire building or plot has been sold, the mutation may be allowed on payment of up-to-date dues. In case of sale through an agreement to sell, it is done on payment of transfer duty on the prevalent rates.

Friday, February 7, 2014

Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the concept of "Judicial Review"

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. — Chief Justice John Marshall

At the end of President John Adams’ term, his Secretary of State failed to deliver documents commissioning William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.  Once President Thomas Jefferson was sworn in, in order to keep members of the opposing political party from taking office, he told James Madison, his Secretary of State, to not deliver the documents to Marbury.  Marbury then sued James Madison asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ requiring him to deliver the documents necessary to officially make Marbury Justice of the Peace. The Marbury v. Madison decision resulted in establishment of the concept of judicial review.

Summary of the Decision

 

The Court unanimously decided not to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury.  Chief Justice Marshall understood the danger that this case posed to the power of the Supreme Court.  Because Madison was President Jefferson’s secretary of state and Jefferson was head of the Democratic Party while Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury were Federalists, President Jefferson was almost certain to direct Madison to refuse to deliver the commission to Marbury.  If the Court required Madison to deliver the commission and Madison refused, the Court had no power to force him to comply, and, therefore the Court would look weak.  If the Court did not act, it would look like the justices made their decision out of the fear that Madison would not obey their decision. 
The justices struck a middle ground between these alternatives in their opinion, written by Chief Justice Marshall.  The Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that according to the Constitution, the Court did not have the authority to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury in this case.  They found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution because it gave the Supreme Court more authority than it was given under the Constitution.  The dispute centered around the difference between the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and its appellate jurisdiction.  If the Court has original jurisdiction over a case, it means that the case can go directly to the Supreme Court and the justices are the first ones to decide the case.  If the Court has appellate jurisdiction, however, the case must first be argued and decided by judges in the lower courts.  Only then can it be appealed to the Supreme Court, where the justices decide whether the rulings of the lower courts were correct.  Marbury brought his lawsuit under the Court’s original jurisdiction, but the justices ruled that it would be an improper exercise of the Court’s original jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus in this case. 
The Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Court to “issue writs of mandamus … to persons holding office under the authority of the United States.”  A writ of mandamus is a command by a superior court to a public official or lower court to perform a special duty.  The Court said this law attempted to give the Court the authority to issue a writ of mandamus, an exercise of its original jurisdiction, to Secretary of State Madison.  However, Article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, as the Court read it, authorizes the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction only in cases involving “ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those [cases] in which a state shall be a party.  In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.”  The dispute between Marbury and Madison did not involve ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, or states.  Therefore, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to exercise its original jurisdiction in this case.  Thus the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Constitution were in conflict with each other.
Declaring the Constitution “superior, paramount law,” the Supreme Court ruled that when ordinary laws conflict with the Constitution, they must be struck down.  Furthermore, it is the job of judges, including the justices of the Supreme Court, to interpret laws and determine when they conflict with the Constitution.  According to the Court, the Constitution gives the judicial branch the power to strike down laws passed by Congress, the legislative branch.  This is the principle of judicial review.  Thus, it has been recognized since this decision that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Through this decision, Chief Justice Marshall established the judicial branch as an equal partner with the executive and legislative branches within the developing system of government.  By refusing to require Madison and Jefferson to deliver the commission to Marbury, he did not give Madison the opportunity to disobey the Court, making it look weak.  And, by declaring the Court’s power through the principle of judicial review, he made it clear that the justices did not make their decision out of fear.  Instead, he announced that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and established the Supreme Court as the final authority for interpreting it.

On this date

In 1795, the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, dealing with states' sovereign immunity, was ratified.

In 1857, a French court acquitted author Gustave Flaubert of obscenity for his serialized novel "Madame Bovary."

In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized a flag for the office of the vice president.

 In 1962, President John F. Kennedy imposed a full trade embargo on Cuba.

Friday, January 31, 2014

SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT

SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT

History:

Earlier to 1988 the dishonour of cheque was only a civil liability. But the amendment introduced by Amendment Act No.66/1988 which was published in the gazette of India part-II, dated 19.12.1988, introduced Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which made it a criminal offence. This amendment was a new offence in the commercial filed, it was brought out of necessity in order to bring sanctity to the common business transactions

What amounts to an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act:

Section 138 reads as follows

“….138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the accounts
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
PROVIDED that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.”

Thus Section 138 of N.I.Act, states that when a person issues a cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is issued towards payment of a ‘debt’ or liability and it is returned unpaid for want of funds, the person issuing such a cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence. Section 138 presupposes three conditions for prosecution of an offence they are:
a. Cheque shall be presented for payment within six months from the date of issue or before expiry of its validity.

b. The holder shall issue notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer with in one month of the receipt of information of the bounced cheque, and

c. The drawer inspite of the demand notice fails to make payment within one month of the receipt of the notice.
If the above three conditions are satisfied the holder in due course gets the cause of action to launch prosecution against the drawer of the bounced cheque.

How should the complaint for dishonour of cheque be lodged for the offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act?

Sec.142 of the Act envisages the method of lodging the complaint for the offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

Cognizance of offences:

As per this Section notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure:

a. no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable u/s.138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque,

b. such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Sec.138,
[Provided that the cognizance of the complaint may be taken by the court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period]

c. no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence punishable u/s.138.

The cases filed under sec.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are tried summarily. Thus for an offence to be made out and to set the criminal law in motion for the offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act One should lodge a complaint in writing made within 30 days from the date of cause of action by the payee or holder in due course has to file a complaint before the Jurisdictional court u/s.200 of Cr.P.C.. When the complaint is presented for the said offence the court has to follow the procedure prescribed u/s.200 of Cr.P.C[i]. Which reads as follows
If the complaint so filed is made within limitation(time) and preconditions prescribed u/s.138 are complied with, court has to take cognizance of the offence and record sworn statement, then process shall be issued to the accused. The Magistrate shall not refer the complaint to the police for investigation u/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C. as the offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is non-cognizable offence[ii].

Presumption regarding the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in favour of holder:

When a complaint is file under Section 138 the court presumes that unless contrary is proved, the holder of cheque received the notice and failed to make necessary payment as referred to in Sec.138 for the discharge in whole or in part any legally valid ‘debt’ or ‘liability’. So, there is presumption that


PREMATURE COMPLAINT:
The Supreme Court[iii] has held that even though a complaint is presented prematurely, the Court need not dismiss it and on the other hand it should wait till maturity or it may return the complaint to the complainant for presenting it later. The same matter again arose in a different situation before the Hon’ble High Court of karnataka[iv] . In that case, after trial, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was premature and acquitted the accused. Before the Hon’ble High Court, relying upon Narasingh Das Tapadia’s case, it was contended that the Magistrate was bound to return the complaint when it was premature. But the Hon’ble High Court did not accept that contention and held that it was not mandatory for the Magistrate to return the complaint on the ground that it was premature and in that situation he had no alternative except to acquit the accused.

HOW MANY TIMES CHEQUE COULD BE PRESENTED?

A Division bench of our Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka[v] has held that till the expiry of the period of validity i.e.., 6 months a cheque could be presented any number of times, but, however, successive notices for purposes of determining the cause of action are not contemplated and therefore the complaint will have to be filed within one month from the date on which the cause of action arises. Similar is the view taken by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 3043 (SADANANDAN BHADRAN VS. MADHAVAN SUNIL KUMAR). In that case it is held that though a cheque can be presented any number of times during the period of its validity, the cause of action to file the complaint arises only once. In 2001 AIR SCW 2567=AIR 2001 SC 2825 (M/S. UNIPLAS INDIA LTD., VS. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), on facts the decision in ILR 1998 sC 3043 has been distinguished and it has been held that if within 15 days, notice of dishonour is not issued by the complainant, then he can create a fresh cause of action by presenting the cheque again.

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR:
It is held[vi] by courts that if the notice is not signed by the Advocate, it cannot be said that it is no notice. Further it has also been held that what is required under Sec.138(b) is that the notice of dishonour of cheque should be given within 15 days from the date of receipt of information from the bank and it is not necessary that the notice also should be served on the accused within the said 15 days. The Supreme Court in (SUMAN SETHI VS. AJAY K. CHURIWAL)[vii] it is held that if in the notice sent under Sec.138(b) in addition to the cheque amount any other sum by way of interest, cost etc., is also claimed, it cannot be said that notice is not a valid one. Following this decision, Karnataka Hon’ble High Court[viii] has taken a similar view. However, High Court held that a combined notice issued on behalf of the complainants in two different cases, though the complainants are related to each other as husband and wife, in respect of separate cheques is not valid if in those notices the claim has been combined. In 2001 AIR SCW 2352 (UNITED CREDIT LTD., VS. ASO SALES INDIA AND OTHERS) the decision in Suman Sethi’s case referred to above has been followed and it has been again held that merely because in addition to the cheque amount, interest and costs are also claimed in the notice, the same is not invalid.
In the decision reported in 1997 (3) KLJ 271 (M/s. SAVITHA ENTERPRISES VS. K.RAVINDRA NATH SHETTY) the Hon’ble High Court has held that what is required is that a complaint is to be presented within 30 days from the date on which the cause of action arises and if at the request of the drawee the cheque is presented again and it is bounced, it cannot be contended by the accused that a fresh notice should have been issued when the cheque was dishonoured again.
In ILR 1998 Kar. 1841 (SRIDHAR M.A. VS. METALLOY N. STEEL CORPORATION) and 1999 Cri.L.J. 4606 (K.BHASKARAN VS. VAIDHYAN BALAN) the Supreme Court was concerned with the question as to when the service of notice could be inferred and it was held that if there is an endorsement like “not available in the house”, “house locked”, “shop closed”, “un claimed”, the service should be deemed to have been effected. These decisions of the Supreme Court have been recently followed by our Hon’ble High Court in the decision reported in ILR 2000 Kar. 1255 (A. SATHYANARAYANA VS. C. NAGARAJA) in which case the notice of dishonour was returned with an endorsement that the accused was not found on all the seven dates on which it was taken for service.

POWERS AND LIABILITIES OF POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER:

In ILR 1997 Kar. 1747 (P.A. VERGHEES VS. M/S. CAMPION BUSINESS ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,) it was held that a complaint presented by a power of attorney holder is valid. In ILR 2001 Kar. 2833 (S.RAMESH VS. BASANTH KUMAR PATIL) and in ILR 2001 Kant. 3909 (M.RAMAIAH VS. M/S. RAMANIKA SILKS PVT. LTD.,) it has been held by our Hon’ble High Court that a power of attorney holder of the payee or holder in due course can present a complaint under Sec.138 of the Act.
In ILR 1999 Kar. 1655 (G.M. GURAPPA REEDY VS. M/S. A.S. FINANCE & INVESTMENTS) it was held that even if a cheque is given by a person as power of attorney holder of another or for the liability of another, he is still liable to be prosecuted.

CAN THE DIRECTORS OF A COMPANY BE PROSECUTED UNDER SECTION 138 FOR DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE:

The question whether it is permissible to prosecute all the directors of the company for an offence under Sec 138 of the N.I. Act was considered by our Hon’ble High Court in the decision reported in ILR 1997 Kar. 3239 = 1998 (2) KLJ 337 (NUCOR WIRES LTD., & OTHERS VS. H.M.T. (INTERNATIONAL) LTD.,) and it has been held that to launch a prosecution against the Directors of the company, there must be specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by them in the transaction. Further, it is held that if the cheque is issued by the Managing Director who represents the company, then the case can be proceeded only against the company and the Managing Director. It is also stated that the Court has to find out as to who are all the persons incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or firm as the case may be.

In AIR 2000 SC 145 (ANIL HADA VS.INDIAN ACRYLIC LTD.,) it was held that if a company could not be prosecuted for any reason, (in that case winding up proceedings had been ordered) there was no bar to proceed against the Directors, but, however, in such a case the complainant had to establish that the offence was actually committed by the company. It is also held in that case that in such a case, the accused can show that the company has not committed the offence though it is not made an accused and hence the accused who has been prosecuted is not liable to be punished. It is further held that prosecution of the company is not a sine quo non for prosecution of the other persons.

In ILR 2000 Kar. 1415 (R.GURUSWAMY VS. M/S. BALAJI COTTON INDUSTRIES) one of the directors of the company had issued cheques in question and the notice was issued calling upon the company to make good the amount for which the cheques had been issued. A contention was urged that the particular director alone could not have been prosecuted. The contention was overruled by the Hon’ble High Court and it was observed as to what was the consequence of not impleading the other directors was not a thing which could be speculated upon, at the stage of issuing process.