1

THE COMPLAINANT IN A CASE UNDER THE NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1SS1

SrI S.M. Deka

Direcor,
Morh Eosern 1udiciol Cllicers
lroining lnsiue. ME1Cll)
1. THE INTRODUCTION
In June 200S tbe Supreme Court and tbe Karnataka HIgb
Court In two reported decIsIons spoke about tbe eIIgIbIIIty crIterIa oI a
compIaInant In a case Under SectIon 13S oI tbe NegotIabIe Instruments Act,
1SS1 ( tbe N.I. Act bereInaIter). Botb tbe Judgments reIerred to VISHWA
MITTER Vs O.P. PODDAR, (19S3)4 SCC ?01 oI September 19S3 to be
reIerred bereInaIter as VISHWA MITTER. WbIIe tbe Supreme Court reIIed on
and reIterated tbe Iaw IaId down In VISHWA MITTER tbe Karnataka HIgb
Court beyond recordIng tbat tbe Iearned CounseI Ior tbe petItIoner reIIed on
tbe saId Supreme Court Judgment dId not consIder VISHWA MITTER. It Is
tbe concIusIon In tbe Karnataka Judgment as regards tbe quaIIIIcatIon oI
tbe compIaInant tbere tbat bas compeIIed a bIt oI study wbIcb eventuaIIy
resuIted In tbIs essay.
2. THE LAW LAID DOWN IN VISHWA MITTER OF SEPTEMBER, 19S3:
Paragrapbs 4 and S oI VISHWA MITTER contaIn tbe Iaw IaId
down tbere. In para 4 aIter consIderIng tbe provIsIons oI SectIon 4(2) and
SectIon 190 oI tbe Code oI CrImInaI Procedure, 19?3 It was beId,
TIccoc, on u conIncd cudng o Sccton 4(2) utI
Sccton l9U o tIc Codc o Cnnu Poccduc, t tunscs
tIut uon u conunt cd I u cson scttng out ucts
tIccn uIcI consttutcs tIc ocncc Icoc u Mugstutc
scccd n Sccton l9U, tIc Mugstutc u Ic conctcnt
to tuIc cognzuncc o tIc ocncc cscctuc o tIc
quucutons o cgIt o tIc conununt to c tIc
conunt. It nust, Ioucuc, Ic conccdcd tIut uIcc u
ouson to tIc contu s nudc n un stututc, uIcI
nu ndcutc tIc quucuton o cgIt o u conununt
to c tIc conunt, tIc Mugstutc Icoc tuIng
cognzuncc s cnttcd und Ius ouc to nquc uIctIc tIc
conununt sutscs tIc cgIt ctcu.
2
Tbe Supreme Court by way oI IIIustratIng tbe poInt tben
IndIcated cases covered by tbe provIsIons oI SectIon 19S(1), 19S(2), 19S and
199 oI tbe Code oI CrImInaI Procedure, 19?3 prescrIbIng quaIIIIcatIons or
eIIgIbIIIty crIterIa Ior tbe compIaInant under tbose provIsIons. SectIon 20 oI
tbe PreventIon oI Food AduIteratIon Act, 19S4 and SectIon 621 oI tbe
CompanIes Act 19S6 were aIso mentIoned by way oI IIIustratIon and tben
tbe Iaw Is summarIsed tbus In para S :
It s tIus cstu ccu tIut unonc cun sct tIc cnnu
uu n noton I ng u conunt o ucts consttutng un
ocncc Icoc u Mugstutc cnttcd to tuIc cognzuncc
undc Sccton l9U und uncss un stututo ouson
cscIcs un sccu quucuton o cgIt ctcu o
uttng tIc cnnu uu n noton, no cout cun dccnc to
tuIc cognzuncc on tIc soc gound tIut tIc conununt s
not conctcnt to c tIc conunt . ....... Hut uIcc un
sccu stututc cscIcs ocnccs und nuIcs un sccu
ouson o tuIng cognzuncc o sucI ocnccs undc tIc
stututc, tIc conununt cqucstng tIc Mugstutc to tuIc
cognzuncc nust suts tIc cgIt ctcu cscIcd I
tIc stututc.
3. THE SUPREME COURT IN SHANKAR FINANCE AND
INVESTMENTS -Vs- STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS,
(200S)S SCC S36 OF JUNE, 200S.
SpecIaI Statute" InvoIved In SHANKAR FINANCE (Supra) Irom
tbe Supreme Court Is tbe N.I. Act and tbe SpecIaI ProvIsIon" Is tbe
provIsIon oI SectIon 142(a) oI tbe N.I. Act wbIcb Is tbIs:
NotwItbstandIng anytbIng contaIned In tbe Code oI CrImInaI
Procedure, 19?3(2 oI 19?4)-
(u) No cout sIu tuIc cognzuncc o un ocncc
unsIuIc undc Sccton lJS cxcct uon u
conunt, n utng, nudc I tIc ucc o, us
tIc cusc nu Ic, tIc Iodc n duc cousc o tIc
cIcquc;
Tbe compIaInant tbere was a soIe proprIetary concern In tbe
name and styIe oI MJs Sbankar FInance and Investments owned by one
AtmakurI Sankar Rao, wbo executed a power oI attorney In Iavour oI SrI
3
Tbamada Satyanarayana. Tbe substance oI tbe descrIptIon oI tbe
compIaInant wouId read tbus : - MJs Sbankar FInance and Investments, a
proprIetory concern oI AtmakurI Sankar Rao, represented by SrI Tbamada
Satyanarayana.
Tbe compIaInt was sIgned by Tbamada Satyanarayana and be
aIso was examIned under SectIon 200 oI tbe Code oI CrImInaI Procedure,
19?3. EventuaIIy tbe HIgb Court quasbed tbe compIaInt on tbe ground tbat
tbe same was not sIgned by tbe compIaInantJpayee oI tbe cbeque. Tbe HIgb
Court aIso Iound IrreguIarIty In examInIng on oatb tbe power oI attorney
boIder. Tbe Supreme Court quoted Irom VISHWA MITTER, RAM
CHANDRA PRASAD SHRMA -VS- STATE OF BIHAR, AIR 196? S.C. 349
AND JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI -VS- INDUSIND BANK LTD., (200S)2
SCC 21? tben rejected botb tbe poInts IndIcated above wbIcb Iound Iavour
wItb tbe HIgb Court.
Paragrapbs 10, 11 and 1S oI tbIs Judgment oI tbe Supreme
Court are most InstructIve. A summary oI tbe Iaw IaId down wouId read
tbus :-
(1) A proprIetary concern Is notbIng but an IndIvIduaI tradIng In a trade
name. In cIvII Iaw sucb a concern cannot sue In tbe tradIng name but
must sue In bIs own name, tbougb otbers can sue bIm In tbe tradIng
name. Had tbIs been a cIvII suIt tbe proper descrIptIon oI tbe pIaIntIII
sbouId be AtmakurI Sankar Rao carryIng on busIness under tbe
name and styIe oI MJs Sbankar FInance and Investments, a soIe
proprIetary concern." SInce tbIs Is a crImInaI compIaInt under tbe
specIaI requIrements oI SectIon 142 oI tbe N.I. Act tbe payee MJs
Sbankar FInance and Investment can ItseII be tbe compIaInant.
(2) Wbere tbe proprIetary concern, as In tbe case In band, carrIes on
busIness tbrougb a power oI attorney boIder tbe compIaInt, In case oI
a payee can be vaIIdIy IIIed by descrIbIng tbe compIaInant In any one
oI tbe Iour metbods as IoIIows :
(u) TIc octo o tIc octu conccn dcscIng Insc us
tIc soc octo o tIc ucc.
(I) TIc octu conccn, dcscIng tsc us u soc octu
conccn, ccscntcd I ts soc octo.
(c) TIc octo ccscntcd I Is ouc-o-uttonc Iodc.
(d) TIc octu conccn o tIc octo ccscntcd I Is
ouc o uttonc Iodc.
4
(3) Tbe compIaInt wouId be bad II tbe power-oI-attorney boIder IIIes tbe
compIaInt In bIs own name as II be Is tbe compIaInant.
(4) Wbere tbe power-oI-attorney boIder Is In cbarge oI tbe busIness oI tbe
compIaInant and aIone Is personaIIy aware oI tbe transactIon and tbe
compIaInt Is sIgned by tbe attorney boIder on bebaII oI tbe
compIaInant payee tbe power-oI-attorney boIder can depose Ior tbe
compIaInant payee.
Wbat bas been saId In respect oI a payeeJcompIaInant can aIso
be appIIed to a boIder In due courseJcompIaInant. Tbus tbougb SectIon
142(a) oI tbe N.I. Act mentIons onIy two entItIes tbat Is tbe payee and tbe
boIder In due course as tbe compIaInant, tbe compIaInt In a gIven case may
aIso be IIIed by tbese two entItIes tbrougb tbe power-oI-attorney boIders oI
eItber oI tbem In eacb case.
4. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN SRI ASHOK KUMAR -VS- DR. T.R.
BHAGEERATHI, 200S(6) AIR Kar R 219 OF JUNE 200S.
Tbe decIsIon wIII be reIerred bereInaIter as ASHOK KUMAR. A
cbeque Ior consIderatIon receIved Issued In Iavour oI A.G. Sadananda Bbat
by SrI Asbok Kumar on presentatIon was returned unpaId Ior want oI Iunds.
Tbe Iact oI dIsbonour was IntImated to tbe payee A.G. Sadananda Bbat by
bIs Bankers on 09.0S.200S. On 14.0S.200S A.G. Sadananda Bbat got
Issued tbe requIred demand notIce and on 1S.0S.200S be dIed. Tbe wIIe oI
tbe deceased payee Dr. T.R. BbageeratbI tben IIIed tbe compIaInt Ior an
oIIence under SectIon 13S oI tbe N.I. Act on wbIcb cognIzance was taken by
tbe MagIstrate by Order dated 11.10.200S. TbIs order was cbaIIenged In tbe
HIgb Court. Tbe HIgb Court Iound notbIng wrong In tbe order takIng
cognIzance and dIsmIssed tbe crImInaI petItIon. Tbe HIgb Court's reasonIngs
stated In para 9 oI tbe Judgment proceed tbus :-
Sccton S o tIc Act dcncs Hodc ncuns un cson
cnttcd n Is oun nunc to tIc osscsson tIcco und to
cccuc o ccouc tIc unount undc tIc nstuncnt on
tIc duuc. TIccoc tIc cgu ccscntutuc o u ucc
o Iodc n duc cousc uc cnttcd to cgu osscsson o
tIc nstuncnt und utIc to cccuc und ccouc tIc
unount couccd undc tIc nstuncnt on tIc duuc.
Sccton llS(g) o tIc Act scccs tIut Iodc o u
ncgotuIc nstuncnt s u Iodc n duc cousc. TIccoc
tIc cgu ccscntutucs o dcccuscd ucc o Iodc n
duc cousc uc cnttcd to c u conunt undc Sccton
5
l42 o tIc Act o ocncc unsIuIc undc Sccton lJS o
tIc Act.
Even at tbe IIrst bIusb tbe reasonIng as above appears to be
IaIIacIous. However a detaIIed anaIysIs oI tbe reasonIng may be undertaken
beIore IInaIIy reacbIng a concIusIon eItber way.
S. ANALYSIS OF THE REASONINGS IN ASHOK KUMAR, 200S(6) AIR Kar
219, ILR 200S KAR 3S6S, MANUJKAJ02??J200S
Tbe N.I. Act Is a statute deaIIng wItb PromIssory Notes, BIIIs oI
Excbange and cbeques and Is essentIaIIy a statute concerned wItb cIvII
IIabIIIty IIowIng Irom makIng and negotIatIng tbe Notes, BIIIs and cbeques.
Tbe object and tbe purpose oI tbe N.I. Act Is to codIIy tbe customary Iaw
and prIncIpIes prevaIent durIng tbe MIddIe ages In tbe commercIaI worId
convenIentIy caIIed tbe Iaw mercbant so as to IacIIItate commerce. OnIy wItb
eIIect Irom 01.04.19S9 tbe new Cbapter XVII In tbe N.I. Act creatIng tbe
oIIence under SectIon 13S and otber reIevant proceduraI provIsIons among
tbem SectIon 142(a) were substItuted In tbe N.I. Act. At tbIs stage It wIII be
useIuI to quote Irom BHASHYAM & ADIGA's cIassIc Tbe NegotIabIe
Instruments Act, 1S
tb
EdItIon 200S at page ?41 -
TIc ocncc undc Sccton lJS s not u nutuu cnc Ic
Iut o nudc. It s un ocncc ccutcd I u cgu cton n
tIc Stututc. It s u cu uIt tunsoncd nto u cnnu
uIt, undc cstctcd condtons I uu o un
uncndncnt to tIc Act, uIcI s IougIt nto occ on n
l9S9. T tIcn tIc ocndng ucts cccd to n Sccton lJS
consttutcd on u uc cu uIt.
Courts oIten IaII to keep tbIs orIgIn oI tbe oIIence In mInd and
to dIstInguIsb cIvII IIabIIIty and tbe restrIcted condItIon" oI tbe crImInaI
IIabIIIty oI tbe oIIence. It Is obvIous Irom tbe passage quoted Irom tbe
judgment tbat ASHOK KUMAR suIIers Irom tbIs maIady. It Is unIortunate
tbat tbougb tbe Iearned counseI Ior tbe petItIoner tbere reIIed on VISHWA
MITTER tbe HIgb Court beyond recordIng tbe Iact oI reIIance dId not IInd
It necessary to advert to VISHWA MITTER. Had tbat been done, It Is
possIbIe tbat tbe HIgb Court Instead oI begInnIng tbe reasonIng Irom tbe
deIInItIon oI HoIder" and reacbIng HoIder In due course" vIa SectIon 11S(g)
wouId bave straIgbtway begun Irom tbe SpecIaI provIsIon" oI SectIon 142(a).
In sucb a case tbe deIInItIon oI HoIder In due course" wouId bave been at
tbe core oI tbe reasonIng. ReasonIng In ASHOK KUMAR quoted In
paragrapb 4 oI tbIs essay wouId be approprIate Ior a cIvII suIt IIIed by
Dr.T.R. BbageeratbI, tbe wIIe oI tbe deceased payee oI tbe cbeque, A.S.
Sadananda Bbat to recover tbe amount mentIoned In tbe cbeque. Tbe
matter oI tbe cIvII IIabIIIty oI tbe drawer oI tbe cbeque towards tbe IegaI
6
representatIve oI tbe payee or oI tbe boIder-In-due course wouId be
consIdered a IIttIe Iatter.
HoIder In due course" bas been deIIned In SectIon 9 oI tbe
N.I. Act. For tbe present purpose tbe key eIements oI tbe deIInItIon are tbe
IoIIowIng tbree : -
(l) tIc cson nust Ic tIc osscsso o tIc cIcquc o
consdcuton t s u Icuc cIcquc ; o
(2) tIc cson nust Ic tIc ucc tIc cIcquc s uuIc to
odc; o
(J) tIc cson nust Ic tIc ndoscc tIcco tIc cIcquc s
uuIc to odc
SectIon 13, 14, 1S and 16 oI tbe N.I. Act expIaIn tbe meanIngs
oI NegotIatIon, Bearer cbeque, cbeque payabIe to order, Indorsement and
Indorsee. In ASHOK KUMAR tbe correct questIon to ask Is- Is tbe wIIe oI
A.S. Sadananda Bbat tbat Is Dr. T.R. BbjageeratbI eItber tbe payee or tbe
possessor Ior consIderatIon or tbe Indorsee oI tbe cbeque. GoIng by tbe Iacts
narrated In tbe Judgment tbe cbeque beIng payabIe to order tbe more
poInted questIon wIII be Is tbe wIIe tbe payee or tbe Indorsee. A.S.
Sadananda Issued tbe notIce oI demand on 14.0S.200S and dIed and
1S.0S.200S. On tbese Iacts tbe answer cannot but be tbat tbe compIaInant
answerIng posItIveIy none oI tbe saId tbree questIons cannot be wItbIn tbe
specIaI provIsIons oI SectIon 142(a) oI tbe N.I. Act and a compIaInt under
SectIon 13SJ142 oI tbe N.I. Act IIIed by ber wouId be Incompetent. Dr. T.R.
BbageeratbI tbe wIIe oI tbe deceased payee Is no doubt a IegaI representatIve
oI tbe deceased. Sbe came Into possessIon oI tbe cbeque not vIa tbe route
provIded by tbe provIsIons oI tbe N.I. Act beIng neItber tbe payee nor tbe
possessor Ior vaIue nor beIng an Indorsee. Sbe came Into possessIon oI tbe
cbeque under tbe generaI Iaw oI devoIutIon as an beIr.
Tbe route startIng wItb tbe deIInItIon oI HoIder" In SectIon S oI
tbe N.I. Act aIso bas not been adequateIy traversed and cIoseIy IoIIowed by
tbe HIgb Court. Mere possessIon oI a Note or BIII or a cbeque does not
make one a HoIder" wItbIn SectIon S oI tbe N.I. Act. Tbe key IngredIent oI
beIng a HoIder" wItbIn SectIon S oI tbe N.I. Act Is entItIement to possess In
bIs own name". A payee obvIousIy Is so entItIed. Otber tban tbe payee tbe
Instrument must be negotIated eItber by deIIvery wItbIn SectIons 46 and 4?
oI tbe N.I. Act or by deIIvery and Indorsement wItbIn SectIon 46, 4? and 4S
oI tbe N.I. Act dependIng on tbe nature oI tbe Instrument. Tbe dates oI tbe
crucIaI events In tbe case aIready IndIcated Ieave no room Ior doubt tbat
tbere couId not bave been any Iorm oI negotIatIon oI tbe cbeque In Iavour oI
Dr. T.R. BbageeratbI. Sbe does not quaIIIy even as a HoIder". In tbe
cIrcumstances tbe questIon oI ber beIng a HoIder In due course" tbrougb
tbe presumptIon under SectIon 11S (g) oI tbe N.I. Act, tbereIore, does not at
aII arIse.
7
Even on tbe cIvII IIabIIIty oI Asbok kumar, tbe drawer oI tbe
cbeque towards Dr. T.R. BbageeratbI consIderabIe conIIIct among severaI
decIsIons oI dIIIerent HIgb Courts exIsts. TbIs was tbe resuIt oI bestowIng
wIder meanIng to tbe Iacts and words used In SADASUK JANAKI DAS -VS-
KISHEN PARSHAD, AIR 191S P.C. 146. FortunateIy Iaw In tbIs regard Is
IInaIIy settIed tbrougb decIsIons IIke FuII Bencb decIsIon oI tbe AIIababad,
Madrass, Punjub HIgb Court as weII as severaI DIvIsIon Bencb decIsIons oI
many HIgb Courts most eIoquent among tbem wouId be tbe one by tbe
Rajastban HIgb Court and tbe SIngIe Bencb decIsIon oI tbe Madbya Pradesb
HIgb Court. Tbese decIsIons are RAI RAM KISHORE -VS- RAM PRASAD,
AIR 19S2 AIIababad 24S (FB), MUTHUVEERAN CHETTY -Vs- GOVINDAN
CHETTY, AIR 1961 Mad S1S (FB) and PADAM PARSHAD -Vs- LOK
NATH, AIR 1964 Punjub 49? (FB), BHAGIRATH -Vs- GULAB KANWAR,
AIR 19S6 Rajastban 1?4(DB) and CHAMPALAL -Vs PADAM CHAND, AIR
19?1 M.P. 133. A summary oI tbe Iaw deducIbIe Irom tbe above decIsIons
wouId read tbus :- Tbe N.I. Act deaIs wItb transIer oI negotIabIe Instruments
tbat Is Notes, BIIIs and Cbeques tbrougb modes oI negotIatIon prescrIbed
tbere. But tbe N.I. Act does not aIIect tbe operatIon oI tbe generaI Iaw oI
devoIutIon or transIer by act oI partIes provIded In SectIon 130 oI tbe
TransIer oI Property Act. Wben tbe Instrument Is negotIated under tbe N.I.
Act tbe prescrIptIons oI tbe N.I. Act bave to be IoIIowed. But wben tbe
transIer or assIgnment Is under generaI devoIutIon or under a Iaw IIke tbe
TransIer oI Property Act no negotIatIon under N.I. Act Is necessary and a
SuIt to recover tbe amount covered by tbe Instrument by tbe IegaI
representatIve or beIr oI tbe payeeJHoIder Is maIntaInabIe.
Tbougb tbe decIsIon Is oI margInaI reIevance Ior tbe present
purpose tbe Supreme Court's vIews about tbe HoIder" and HoIder In due
course" In reIatIon to cbeques and tbeIr rIgbt to sue can be read In U.
PONNAPPA MOOTHAN SONS -Vs- CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., (1991)
1 SCC 113.
Tbe dIstInctIon botb substantIve and proceduraI between cIvII
actIon and crImInaI actIon IndIcated In SHANKAR FINANCE (Supra) and tbe
supremacy oI tbe specIaI restrIctIve quaIIIIcatIon oI tbe compIaInant under
tbe specIaI statute enuncIated In VISHWA MITTER bave not been kept In
Iocus In decIdIng ASHOK KUMAR by tbe HIgb Court.
It may not be IrreIevant to mentIon bere tbat way back In
September 19SS tbe Law CommIssIon beaded by M.C. SetaIvad submItted
Its 11
tb
Report deaIIng wItb tbe N.I. Act. Paragrapbs 4S to S1 oI tbe Report
contaIn a very detaIIed dIscussIon on tbe HoIder" and HoIder-In- due
course" A revIsed draIt oI tbe deIInItIons was proposed. Two excerpts Irom
tbe Report are very InstructIve. Tbey are tbese :-
(l) It, nu, Ioucuc, Ic oIscucd ut tIc outsct tIut tIc cIungcs
ntoduccd do not sccI to utc tIc uu Iut to oIuutc tIc
conct o udcu onons und tIc ctcsn o conncntutos
uIcI tIc cxstng dcnton Ius gucn sc to.
8
(2) TIc gIt o ncgotuton s conccd I tIc Act on uon u
nuIc, duuc ucc o ndoscc (udc Sccton 5l) und n tIc
cusc o Icuc nstuncnt uon tIc Icuc. In tIc cusc o un
nstuncnt uuIc to odc, sccton 4S us doun tIut t s
ncgotuIc I u Iodc I ndoscncnt und dcuc tIcco.
TIc Iodc n tIs contcxt docs not ncun un ussgncc o u
cson uIo Ius ucqucd gIts undc tIc nstuncnt I cgu
dcuouton ......
Tbe new deIInItIon oI HoIder" suggested by tbe Law CommIssIon
Is tbIs :
(12) HoIder means tbe payee, or Indorsee oI tbe
Instrument or tbe bearer tbereoI, but does not IncIude a
beneIIcIaI owner cIaImIng tbrougb a benamIdar".
A suggested new addItIon to tbe deIInItIons Is tbIs :-
(b) Hcuc ncuns u cson uIo I ncgotuton concs nto
osscsson o un nstuncnt uuIc to Icuc.
Had tbese suggestIons In accordance wItb tbe sImIIar provIsIons
In tbe EngIIsb BIIIs oI Excbange Act, 1SS2 been accepted and enacted Into
tbe N.I. Act It wouId sureIy bave served to reIIeve tbe conIusIon In ASHOK
KUMAR as to tbe HoIder".
In ASHOK KUMAR tbe HIgb Court reIIed on PUNJUB & SIND
BANK -Vs- VINKAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD, (2001)? SCC ?21 cIted by tbe
Iearned counseI Ior tbe compIaInant Dr. T.R. BbageeratbI. AIter excerptIng
paragrapb 21 and 22 oI tbe above noted Supreme Court Judgment tbe HIgb
Court In para 11 oI tbe judgment spoke tbus :-
TIougI tIc ucts n PunuI und Snd HunI`s cusc
uc dccnt , tIc uto s tIut tIc Iodc o un
nstuncnt sIu Ic csuncd to Ic u Iodc n duc
cousc unt tIc contu s oucd. TIccoc n tIc
nstunt cusc tIc csondcnt cunng to Ic tIc uc
o tIc dcccuscd ucc cd tIc conunt undc
Sccton l42 o tIc Act Icoc tIc tu cout und tIc
sunc s nuntunuIc unt tIc contu s oucd.
Tbe prIncIpaI questIon beIore tbe Supreme Court In (2001)?
SCC ?21 was wbetber dIsbonour oI a pay order, otber requIsItes beIng
IuIIIIIed, may sound In a compIaInt under SectIon 13S oI tbe N.I. Act .
InsImpIer terms tbe questIon was wbetber a pay order" Is a cbeque" wItbIn
SectIon 6 oI tbe N.I. Act. Tbe Supreme Court answered tbe questIon In tbe
aIIIrmatIve. In tbat case It was undIsputed tbat tbe compIaInant Company
Is tbe boIder oI tbe Instrument on Its own rIgbt" (vIde para 23 oI tbe
Supreme Court Judgment).
9
Tbe reIevant InscrIptIons oI tbe pay order In questIon bas been
quoted In para 3 oI tbe Supreme Court Judgment tbus :
Pucc`s uccount on - To u PunuI und Snd HunI
M/s Posc Lcusng und Fnuncc Conun Ltd o odc.
AII tbese bave not been notIced In ASHOK KUMAR and extracts
Irom tbe Supreme Court Judgment bave been quoted out oI context. Tbe
extracts read In tbe context detaIIed above wben appIIed to ASHOK KUMAR
wouId not bestow tbe quaIIIIcatIons oI a HoIder" on Dr. T.R. BbageeratbI
tbe compIaInant In tbe case beIore tbe HIgb Court. Tbe route vIa SectIon
11S(g) IndIcated In (2001)? SCC 201 Irom HoIder" to beIng a HoIder In due
course" to maIntaIn tbe crImInaI compIaInt Is tbus not avaIIabIe to tbe
compIaInant.
Tbe WrIter was not abIe to dIscover and peruse any decIsIon oI
otber HIgb Courts or tbe Supreme Court wbere on tbe deatb oI a payee an
beIr bad IIIed a compIaInt and sucb a compIaInt bad been beId to be
maIntaInabIe. However BHASHYAM & ADIGA's ceIebrated Book on tbe
NegotIabIe Instruments Act, eIgbteentb EdItIon 200S at page S4S SynopsIs
112 deaIt wItb tbe questIon tbus :-
A conIncd cudng o Scctons lJS und l42 nuIcs t
ccu tIut t s on tIc ucc o tIc Iodc n duc cousc o
tIc cIcquc n qucston uIo cun c u conunt undc
tIcsc Scctons, und tIut too utc u notcc dcnundng
uncnt s ssucd to tIc duuc o tIc cIcquc. A ucc s
dcncd n Sccton ? us u cson nuncd n tIc nstuncnt,
to uIon o to uIosc odc tIc nonc s, I tIc nstuncnt,
dcctcd to Ic ud. Fo u cson to Ic Iodc n duc cousc,
Ic nust conc nto osscsson o tIc nstuncnt o
consdcuton. TIc csondcnt, us tIc cxccuto o tIc u o
Is utIc, to uIon tIc cIcquc n qucston Iud Iccn
ssucd, uus nctIc tIc ucc no tIc Iodc n duc cousc,
us tIcc uus notIng to sIou tIut Ic Iud ud un
consdcuton to Is utIc und uus not cnttcd to c tIc
conunt n qucston n cscct o tIc cIcquc.
Tbe Iast sentence In tbe above extract Is a dIgest oI a decIsIon
KOYA MOIDEEN (PK) -Vs- HARIHARAN (G), (1996)S6 Comp Cas
399(Ker). TbIs Is tbe cIosest case on Iacts except tbat no wIII Is InvoIved In
ASHOK KUMAR wbIcb Is a case oI Intestate successIon.
6. THE CONCLUSION
Tbe upsbot oI tbe precedIng consIderatIons bas to be tbat tbe
IIrst bIusb ImpressIon recorded earIIer Is vaIId. ASHOK KUMAR, In tbat vIew,
bas not been correctIy decIded. Tbe compIaInt, In questIon, IIIed by tbe wIIe
on tbe deatb oI tbe payee Is not competent.
10