There is apparent distinction between a situation wherein a person after issuing a cheque to another, closes that account, and a situation wherein a person after closing the account with the bank, manages to issue a cheque to another from that account he had already closed. In the former, apart from the fact that it may invite another offence, it would certainly be an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
15. The latter situation deals with two totally different situations. Firstly, the account is being closed by the bank on the demand of the account holder himself and thereafter the account holder manages to issue a cheque to another from that account he had already closed. Secondly, the bank on its own volition closes the account by itself, without the knowledge and consent of the account holder; say for example, by treating the account as a non-performing account, and without the knowledge that the account was closed by the bank, the account holder issues a cheque to another from that account. In the case covered by firstly as aforesaid, it would be the offence of cheating, since the cheque was intentionally issued to the payee to cheat him with the knowledge that there was no live account. In that case, it would not be an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, since there was no live account at the time when the cheque is issued. In the case covered by secondly as aforesaid, it would not be an offence of cheating, since the cheque was issued bonafide by believing that the account remained alive; whereas, the dishonour of that cheque would invite an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl. Appeal No. 141 of 2009
Decided On: 05.07.2016
V. Muralidharan Vs. V.A. Kumaran and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B. Kemal Pasha, J.
Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)69 Ker
