Bijoy Kumar Moni Vs. Paresh Manna & Anr

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Bijoy Kumar Moni...

In Bijoy Kumar Moni vs. Paresh Manna & Anr., the Supreme Court clarified that for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the accused. It emphasized that an authorized signatory of a company cannot be considered the “drawer” of the cheque and that prosecution under Section 138 cannot be sustained solely against the signatory if the principal offender (the company) is not arraigned as an accused. Relying on Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh & Ors., the Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s acquittal of the director, highlighting that liability under Section 138 is strict and applies specifically to the drawer of the cheque, thereby dismissing the criminal appeal.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Functional Disability Must Prevail Over Mechanical Schedule Interpretation

In Kamal Dev Prasad v. Mahesh Forge, 2025 INSC 591, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering an issue of workplace injury compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act,1932 held that a disability and loss of earning capacity should not be assessed only on the basis of the Schedule, especially when there Read more »

Moral Responsibility Alone Insufficient for Criminal Liability, Charge or Control Over Child Essential to Punish under S. 75 of the JJ Act

In S.C. Narang Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2025 INSC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 cannot be used to punish Chairman of the school's Managing Committee as he neither has actual charge of the child nor control over him/her. The Read more »

M/s. Shriram Investments Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai (2024 INSC 760)

The appellant initially filed a return in November 1989 and revised it twice. The Income Tax Officer rejected the second revised return, declaring that it was barred by limitation u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which only allows a revised return to be filed before the earlier of Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.