Whether drawer of cheque is liable if cheque is dishonoured as his account was closed by Commercial Tax Department?

 Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the

account of the respondent in the bank was closed at the

instance of the Commercial Tax Department which seized the

money in the said account and this closure was in the year

2005 in pursuance of the letter of the Commercial Tax

Department dated 5.8.2004. So the closure of the account is

at the instance of the Commercial Tax Department. Under

such circumstances, a complaint for the offence u/s 138 of

the N.I. Act cannot be maintained. It is for the said reason,

the Trial Court has rightly granted the order of acquittal to

the respondent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

CRL.A.No.479/2013

Chandran.M. Vs  Rajanna Gowda,

Citation;2015ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL 9

2.

The appellant is said to have advanced a sum of

`.50,000/- to the respondent on 10.6.2007 and towards

repayment, a cheque dated 10.10.2007 for a sum of

`.50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India was given to the

appellant. When the cheque was presented, it returned with

an endorsement ‘ account closed’.

The appellant issued a

notice and as the respondent did not pay the amount, a

complaint was filed in the Trial Court to initiate action

against the respondent for the charge u/s 138 of the

Negotiable

Instruments Act.

In

the

Trial Court,

the

complainant is examined as PW-1 and the Bank Manager is

3

examined as PW-2. Documents Ex.P1 to P10 are marked.

The respondent has got marked Ex.D1 and D2.

3.

The Trial Court after hearing the counsel for the

parties has acquitted the respondent for the charge, aggrieved

by which the present appeal is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the

account of the respondent in the bank was closed at the

instance of the Commercial Tax Department which seized the

money in the said account and this closure was in the year

2005 in pursuance of the letter of the Commercial Tax

Department dated 5.8.2004. So the closure of the account is

at the instance of the Commercial Tax Department. Under

such circumstances, a complaint for the offence u/s 138 of

the N.I. Act cannot be maintained. It is for the said reason,

the Trial Court has rightly granted the order of acquittal to

the respondent. That apart, it is the case of the respondent

4

that his name is not Rajanna Gowda and the evidence of

PW-2 reveals that the account was standing in the name of

C.M.Gowda.

This is also one of the grounds on which the

complaint came to be rejected.

6.

Perusal of the material placed on record does not

reveal any ground to admit this appeal.

7.

Though the learned counsel for the appellant

submits that he has right to approach the court for the

offence u/s 420 of IPC,

it is for the appellant to take

appropriate steps which he deems appropriate under the law.

In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed with

the aforesaid observation.

As the matter is taken up for hearing regarding

admission, I.A.1/13 and I.A.2/13 does not survive for

consideration and hence they are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

Print Page