Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreBCAJ Brieficles are short-format, web-only articles on contemporary topics of professional importance that are open-for-all to read & share.
Explore BrieficlesExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreMonthly mouth-piece of BCAS, the BCA Journal is a leading publication that has been in continuous circulation for more than 53 years. Over the years the BCAJ has become synonymous with high-quality & authentic content across fields of finance, accounting, tax & regulatory matters. The BCAJ has wide circulation across India & commands huge respect amongst the Chartered Accountants` community.
Learn MoreFor queries, collaborations, and insights to forge, Drop a line, share thoughts, inquiries galore, At BCAJ, your messages, we eagerly explore.
Learn More21 Dishonour of cheque : Only the drawer of cheque can be
held liable for the offence : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S. 138, S. 141.
Where the wife was joint account holder alongwith her husband
and cheque was issued by husband, which was dishonoured, the wife cannot be held
liable for the offence u/s.141 of the Act.
The Court observed that there is no such provision regarding
taking cognisance against a person other than the ‘drawer’ of the cheque. It is
manifest from the expression of the words used in S. 138 of the Act “such person
shall be deemed to have committed the offence” related to the person who has
drawn the cheque in favour of the payee and if the said cheque is returned
unpaid on account of the conditions mentioned u/s.138 of the Act, such person
alone is liable, but not other except the contingencies mentioned u/s.141 of the
Act. The accused husband could alone be saddled with culpable liability as he
was the only ‘drawer’ of the cheque.
[ Smt. Bandeep Kaur v. S. Avneet Singh, AIR 2008 (NOC)
1301 (P&H)]