Dishonor of ChequesIntroductionThe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an Act to define the law relating to promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques. This Act has been amended several times commencing from 1885 till 2002. The most important amendment is by Act 66 of 1988 and by virtue of chapter XVII was introduced by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments laws (amendment) Act, which came into force from 01-04-1989. The introduction of Chapter XVII i.e., sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for the prosecutions relating to the offences of dishonour of cheques. Dealings in cheques are vital and important not only for the banking point of view but also for the commerce and industry and the economy of the country. Advent of cheques in the market have given a new dimension to the commercial and corporate world at a time when people have preferred to carry and execute a small piece of paper called cheque than carrying the currency worth the value of cheque. But pursuant to the rise in dealings with cheques also rises the malpractice of giving cheques without any intention of honoring them. Before 1988 there being no legal penal provisions to restrain people from issuing cheques without having sufficient funds in their account or any stringent provision to punish them in the vent of such cheque not being honoured by the drawer. Of course on dishonour of cheques accrues a civil liability. However in reality the processes to execute civil liability becomes notoriously dilatory and recover by way of a civil suit takes an

inordinately long time. To ensure credibility of the negotiable instrument, a criminal offence was inserted in Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in form of the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 which were further modified by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002.

Negotiable Instruments ActsSec.138 to 142 of N.I. Act deals with : i) Sec.138 deals with the offence of dishonour of cheque and the punishment there for. ii) (a) Sec.139, deals with presumption that the holder of a cheque in discharge in whole or in part of any debt or liability; (b) Sec. 140, the defence which may not be allowed in any prosecution under Sec.138. The drawer that he had no reason to believe when he issued the cheque that it may be dishonoured on its presentation; (c) Sec.141, deals with offence by a company prescribing different burden and onus of proof between persons incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and persons, with whose consent or connivance or due to neglect on his part, the offence had been

committed, may be stated to fall under evidence aspect'. iii) Sec.142, deals with the cognizance of an offence prescribing the method or mode of preferring a complaint and the forum before which the complaint has to be preferred, besides prescribing the period, with in which the complaint is to be preferred from the time of accrual of the cause of action, not withstanding anything contained in the code may be stated to fall under procedural and limitation aspects. The amendments made to N.I. Act in 2002 also includes the insertion of new sections 143 to 147. The new sections deals with power of court to try cases summarily, mode of service of summons, evidence of affidavit, bank slip as prima-facie evidence and offences to be compoundable under N.I. Act.I.

CHEQUE: Under the N.I. Act, a cheque is an instrument which is negotiable by delivery. The drawer is discharged when payment is made in due course. In simple terms, this means that when cheque is tendered there is a presumption that payment would be realised in due course, and hence the date of payment is considered to be the date on which the cheque is delivered, regardless of when the cheque is actually presented for payment. The origin of cheques can be traced even from 17th century onwards in England. In the case of Stedman Vs. Gooch, it is observed that payment by negotiable instrument is a conditional payment, which means that if the negotiable instrument is dishonoured on presentation the creditor may consider it as

wastepaper and resort to its original demand. It has been observed in "Benjamen on Sale", 8th edition, it was stated that payment takes effect from the delivery of the bill, but might get defeated by the happening of the condition of non payment at maturity. In "Byles on Bills", 20th edition the position was summerised as A cheque, unless dishonoured is payment'. Under the Common Law of England, the rule is to the effect that the sending of a cheque in payment of debt is subject to the condition subsequent that the cheque must be met on presentation. In the High Authority of Royal Bank of Scotland Vs. Tottenham, 1894 LXXI Law Times Report 168, it was held that a cheque is contract between the parties, and it is for a judge at the trial to construe that contract by reading what is written upon it. II. POST-DATED CHEQUE : The post-dated cheque becomes a cheque under the Act on the date written on it and the six months period has to be reckoned for the purpose of sec.138 of N.I. Act from the said date. A post-dated cheque cannot be presented before the bank and as such the question of its return could not arise. It is only when the post-dated cheque become a cheque with effect from date shown on the date of cheque. A post-dated cheque carries with it an implied notice to the effect that for the present there are no deposits, but at the same time assuring that the funds will be available by the date it becomes due (1956 (1) Madras Law Journal 471).

Post-dating of bills of exchange is allowed both in English and American Law. There is no prohibition in the Indian Acts against post-dating and promissory not which is post-dated is thus an effective negotiable instrument through it cannot be sued upon till after that date passes. III. STOP PAYMENT OF A CHEQUE : In spite of the civil remedy, Sec.138 is primarily meant to prevent dishonesty on the part of a drawer. Sec.138 draws presumption that one commits the offence if he issues the cheque dishonestly and cheque has been drawn and issued to the payee and the payee as the presenter of cheque and thereafter , if any instructions are issued to the bank for non-payment and the cheque is return to payee with an endorsement payment stopped by drawer', it amounts to dishnour of cheque (1996 (2) SCC 739) =AIR 1996 SC 2339. Even if a cheque is dishonoured because of stop payment' instruction to the bank, Sec. 138 would get attracted (1998 (3) SCC 249). The luxury of "stop payment" instructions by the drawer to cover-up real insufficiency funds would no longer be available to drawer as per the law of the land. IV. RE-VALIDATION OF A CHEQUE : There is no provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act or in any other law which stipulates that a drawer of a negotiable instrument cannot re-validate it. It is always open to a drawer to voluntarily re-validate a negotiable Instrument, including a cheque (AIR 2002

SC 38). V. LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DEBT : It is clear from the explanation to Sec.138 of the Act, that the cheque covered by the said section must be relatable to enforceable or debt which must be existing as on the date of issuing of the cheque. For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. In 1997 Crl. Law Journal 1942 A.P., it was held that on the date of issuing of cheque material was not supplied by complainant and the goods was found not of agreed quality. The cheque was presented third time after accused intimated about rejection of material. It was held that there was no infirmity in the reasoning of trial court that on the date of cheque there was no existing debt or liability and as such no offence was constituted u/s. 138 of N.I Act. Where cheques issued as security, on dishonour of such cheque, not offence under Sec.138 of the Act (2001 (2) RCR (Crl.) 75 MP) also see 2002 (3) Crimes 145 ( Raj) .

Circumstances of Dishonour:

The circumstances under which dishonour of cheque takes place or that may contribute to the situation would be irrelevant and are required to be totally ignored. In Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal v. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar the Bombay High Court held that: "A clear reading of Section 138 leaves no doubt in our mind that the circumstances under which such a dishonour takes place are required to be totally ignored. In such case, the law only takes cognizance of the fact that the payment has not been forthcoming and it matters little that any of the manifold reasons may have caused that situation." Requirements of the Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 creates an offence for which the mental element is not necessary. It is enough if a cheque is drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of money to another person out of the account maintained by him for the discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability due. Therefore, whenever the cheques are on account of insufficiency of funds or reasons referable to the drawers liability to provide for funds, the provisions of section 138 of the Act would be attracted, provided the following conditions are satisfied:

Five ingredients of the offence under s. 138.

The offence under Sec. 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts, which are components of the said offence; 1. Drawing of the cheque, 2. Presentation of the cheque to the bank, 3. Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, 4. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount. 5. Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Sec. 138 of the Act. 1. Drawing of a Cheque The drawer in payment of a legal liability to discharge the existing debt should have drawn cheque. Therefore any cheque given say by way of gift would not come within the purview of the section. It should be a legally enforceable debt; therefore time barred debt and money-lending activities are beyond its scope.

The words any debt or any other liability appearing in section 138 make it very clear that it is not in respect of any particular debt or liability The presumption which the Court will have to make in all such cases is that there was some debt or liability once a cheque is issued. It will be for the accused to prove the contrary. i.e., there is no debt or any other liability. This is of course unless the prosecution restricts itself to a particular liability. The Court shall statutorily make a presumption that the cheques were issued for the liability indicated by the prosecution unless contrary is to be proved. 2. Presentation of Cheque The presentation of cheque should be within its validity period. Generally a cheque is valid for six months, but there are cheques whose validity period is restricted to three months etc. The question arises as to which bank the cheque should reach within the validity period, is it the payee to his bank presents that of drawers bank or it is enough if the cheque before six months. The courts are divided on the issue. But common sense demands that the cheque should reach the drawer bank within the period of validity as it is that bank that either pays or rejects payment as per the situation existing on that day. 3. Returning Of the Cheque Unpaid Lot of controversy had arisen on the issue. What reasons are relevant to hold the drawer of the cheque criminally responsible for bouncing of a cheque. The case laws on the subject have now made the position clear. It is not what the bank says in its return memo that is relevant but the actual position as on the date when the cheque reaches the drawer

bank whether there were enough funds in the drawer account to honour the cheque. The following judgments bring out the correct legal position: Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal vs. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar (1993 1 CR 268) = (1993 CRI L J 680) = (1993 MH L J 630) = (72 CC 822) DB BOM Any reason for dishonour is an offence. J. Veeraraghavan v. Lalith Kumar (1995 3 CRI 205) = (1995 83 CC 853) = (1995 CRI L J 1882) MAD DB Any reason for dishonour is an offence. S. 138 of the NI Act Marginal Note stating "Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc. of funds in accounts" addition of word "etc." cannot be considered to be an accident. Disagreeing with Hunasikathimath case (1991 (1) Crimes 226 of Karnataka H.C., who following Punjab and Haryana H.C. in the case of Abdul Samad (1990(@) RCR 335 (P&H) and by a learned single Judge of Bombay H.C. in the case of Om Prakash (1992 (3) Crimes 3006, terming them as rigid and wooden view states: "there is no other go for us except to agree to disagree with the views expressed herein, in as much as such a view, apart from suffering from a serious infirmity of erroneous interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act, is to frustrate the very object and purpose for which the relevant provisions had been introduced by the amending Act. It is to be noted that this sort of a view is not negligibly supported by the very title of the Chapter Of penalties in case of dishonour of certain cheques for insufficiency of funds in the accounts (Emphasis supplied.) Equally important it is to note that the marginal note to sec. 138 of the Act states ----------etc. Top of all, such sort of a view, if accepted and

followed, the statutory provisions of Chapter 17, introduced by amending Act, would become a dead letter and a nonsense situation would be created, in the sense of posing insurmountable obstacle in the free negotiability and acceptability of the cheques in the fast moving commercial transactions at regional, national and global level, creating a calamitous situation in the commercial world. With respect, we agree fully with the view expressed by the Dn. Bench of BOM. H. C in the case of Rakesh Porwal (1993 Cri LJ 68(Bom) (DB) of the Kerala H. C in the case of Thomas Verghese (1992 Cri L J 3080) (DB) and a single Judge of the Rajasthan H.C in the case of Pearay Lal Rajendra Kumar P Ltd. (1993 (3) Crimes 395), in as much as such a view had been arrived at in interpretingthe various expressions and words used in the relevant provisions in a meticulous fashion keeping in view the object and reasons for which such a provision had been introduced with the avowed purpose of achieving the object for which it was enacted." Supreme Court had left certain grey areas by their previous judgments but Three Bench of the Supreme Court has now put to end to this controversy as well. Following is the said judgment: Modi Cements v. Shri Kunchil Kumar Nandi (1998 2 JT SC 198) Rel. on 1998 (2) ALL MR 433 9[S.C.) = 1998 ALL MR (Cry) 1247)= 100[2] BOM LR 97=AIR 1998 SC 1057; 1998 [3] SCC 249; 1998 CRI LJ 1397; 1998 92 COM CASES 88. / VOL.3.DCTC.232. Three Bench Decision Of Sc. - Even if notice is issued stopping payment before the payee deposited the cheque in his bank, offence is complete. (Electronics AND Siddharthan cases overruled) 4. Notice

Notice is a very important stage. It is the non-payment of dishonoured cheque within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice that constitutes an offence. Issuing of a cheque and its dishonour is not an offence. The offence is when the drawer receives a notice from the payee and he fails to pay the dishonoured cheque amount within the grace period of 15 days that constitute an offence. Any demand made after the dishonour of cheque will constitute a notice. It is not necessary that the notice should be sent by Registered Post alone, it could be sent even by fax. It is not necessary that the notice should be in any particular form or style. What is essential is that there should be a demand to pay the dishonoured cheque amount. It is held by the Supreme Court that while the cheque could be presented at any number of times however there shall be only one Notice. The following case may be noted on the subject: Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar (1998 (4) SCALE SC Complaint U/s. 138- Maintainability - conditions precedent to applicability of sec. 138 - A cheque can be presented any number of times during the period of itsvalidity- Whether dishonour of the cheque on each occasion of its presentation gives rise to a fresh cause of action within the meaning of Sec. 142(b) of the act - Held No. - A competent court can take cognizance of a written complaint of an offence u/s.138 if it is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause c of Sec.142 gives it is a restrictive meaning - it is the failure to make payment within 15 days from date of receipt of notice which will give rise to cause of action - Cause of action within meaning of Sec. 142 (c) arises and can arise only once - impediments which negate concept of successive causes of action- Held.:

On each presentation of the cheque and its dishonour a fresh right and not cause of action - accrues in his favour. He may, therefore, without taking pre-emptory action in exercise of his right under clause (b) of Section 138, go on presenting the cheque so as to enable him to exercise such right at any point of time during the validity of the cheque. But, once he gives a notice under clause (b) of Sec. 138 he forfeits such right for in case of failure of the drawer to pay the money within the stipulated time he would be liable for the offence and the cause of action for filing the complaint will arise. Needless to say, the period of one month for filing the complaint will be reckoned from the day immediately following the day on which the period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the notice by the drawer expires. No action taken on the first notice - cheque presented again - second notice sent - on failure to receive money case filed on the basis of second notice - Acquittal on ground that there could not be more than one cause of action in respect of a single cheque - sustainable - Appellant had earlier taken recourse to clause (b) of Sec. 138 but did not avail of cause of action that arose in his favour u/s. 142(b) of the Act. Approved: S.K.D. Lakshmanan Fireworks Industries v. K.V.Sivarama Kirshnan (1995 Cr.L.J. 1384) Overruled: Kumaresan vs. Ammerappa (1991 (1) K.L.T. 893) Therefore it is essential that the notice should be perfect and in conformity with law. A mistake in the notice will be fatal. It is common mistake committed by most of the payees that as soon as the cheque is returned unpaid to write a letter to the drawer threatening him that in case he does not pay against the dishonoured cheque legal action will be taken etc. Such letter will also be construed as a notice. Since a second

notice cannot now be issued on the basis of subsequent dishonour of cheque, due care and caution should be taken while sending the notice on dishonour of cheque. As stated already that non-payment of cheque amount within the grace period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice constitutes an offence and therefore liable to prosecuted for the criminal offence so committed. Amendments of section 138 in 2002 In section 138 of the principal Act, (a) For the words a term which may be extended to one year, the words a term which may be extended to two years shall be substituted; (b) In the proviso, in clause (b), for the words within fifteen days, the words within thirty days shall be substituted. Limitation These being a special legislation certain time limits have been laid down and they should be strictly followed. Any lapse in adhering to the schedule, shall take away a cause of action under Sec. 138. The time limits placed cannot be condoned by the Courts. Therefore the question of making an application for condonation of delay as in the case of civil does not arise at all under the said section. What then are the limitations one has to keep in one mind and follow them strictly to prosecute the drawer of cheque who has failed to pay the said sum within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice? Cheque should be presented to the bank for encashment within its validity period. Within fifteen days from the receipt of return memo indicating reason of dishonour, a notice should be sent demanding the amount of dishonoured cheque. If the drawer does not pay the amount of dishonoured

cheque within the grace period, a complaint thereafter should be filed within one month in the relevant court of Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate as the case may be, having jurisdiction. On the subject, Supreme Court in its following judgment laid down the relevant law as follows:

Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999 96 SC 329 SC)=1999 Cri LJ 1822 (SC)=Vol 3 DCTC 647 (SC) decided on 10-3-1999. Limitation for filingcomplaint limit defined as from a particular day - first day to be excluded. Period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice ending on 14-10-1995 - 30 days period begins on 1510-1995 Complaint filed on15-11-1995-within time. Held on the facts that the period of limitation of 15 days expired on 14-10-1995. So the cause of action for filing the complaint would arise from 15-10-1995. That day (15 Oct) was to be excluded for counting the period of one month The Complaint filed on 15-11-1995 was in time) 1972 (1) SCC 639 (Haru Das Gupta v. St. of West Bengal) relied.

Jurisdiction On the question of jurisdiction, the following judgment of Supreme Court is worth noting:

K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan; for citation is below. = 1999 (6) SCALE 272 (Judgment dated Sept.29, 1999= 1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1845 (SC)

= 1999 (4) ALL MR 452 (S.C.)) by K.T.Thomas and Mr. M.B.Shah JJ; decided on 29-9-1999. Section 138 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 177, 178, 179 -Territorial jurisdiction - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint can be filed at any of the place: 1. Where the cheque was drawn. 2. Where the cheque was presented for encashment. 3. Where the cheque was returned unpaid by drawee bank. 4. Where notice in writing was given to drawer of cheque demanding payment. 5. Where drawer of cheque failed to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice. Each of the fine acts constituting offence could be done at 5 different localities. Hence one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trail for the offence under sec. 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Sec. 138 of the Act. K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidyan Balan.

Penalty On the subject of penalty, the following Supreme Court case is worth noting: 1999 SO.L. Case No. 590 K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan. Penalty is restricted to Rs.5, 000/- besides imprisonment; but magistrate can make liberal use of Sec. 357(3) of the Code. A Magistrate can award any sum as compensation to

alleviate the grievance of the complainant by making resort to Sec. 357(3) of the Code. It is well to remember that this Court has emphasized the need for making liberal use of that provision. No limit is mentioned in the sub-section and therefore, a magistrate can award any sum as compensation. Of course while fixing the quantum of such compensation the Magistrate has to consider what would be the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the complainant. Thus, even if the trial was before a court of magistrate of first class in respect of a cheque which covers an amount exceeding Rs, 5,000/- the court has power to award compensation to be aid to the complainant. Trial held by Magistrate 1st Class who acquitted the accused; In appeal HC convicted the accused and sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment and fine of Rs. One lac. HC could not impose fine exceeding Rs.5000 which the Magistrate could impose under Sec. 29(2) Cr.P.C. High Court could not exercise its own power in imposing the fine.

Civil And Criminal Cases Civil and criminal action is not mutually exclusive but clearly co-extensive. Therefore civil case is no bar for criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court has laid down the following law and put end to the controversy. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. 2000 Cri.L.J. 1487 (Supreme Court) Quashing of complaint; complaint cannot be quashed merely on the ground that civil remedy is available. Cri.P.No. 5386 of 1998 /5-2-1999 (A.P.) reversed. "8. In Rajesh Bajaj v. St of NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259: (1999 AIR SCW 881) : AIR 1999 SC 1216: 1999 Cri LJ 1833) In this case this Court

also pointed out that merely because an act has a civil remedy is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. We quote the following observations: It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions; ---the fact that there is a remedy provided for beach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy available to the appellant herein. Both criminal law and civil law remedy can be pursued in diverse situations. As a matter of fact they are not mutually exclusive but clearly co-extensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in case like arson, accidents etc. It is anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred.

CASELAWS

ILR 2004 Kar. 4505 (V. SATYANARAYANA V/s. M/S. SANDEEP ENTERPRISES) Negotiable Instrument Act Sec.138 Whether the complaint filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act forms part of the record or whether the same has to be marked as an exhibit as held in the judgment G. PREMDAS V/s. VENKAT RAM (2001(1) KCCR 437) or whether mere non-marking of the complaint is fatal Held The complaint filed u/s.138 of N.I.Act forms part of the record and hence, the same is not required to be marked as exhibit and mere not marking of the complaint would not be fatal to the complainants case The judgment in the case G. PREMDAS V/s. VENKAT RAM (2001(1) KCCR 437) is no more good law. As per this decision the complaint is not a document relayed on by complainant in support of his case and as such to rely on or use it, it need not be marked as exhibit since, being part of the record.

ILR 2004 Kar. 4423 (GOA V/s. CHICO URSULA DSOUZA)

PLAST

(P)

LTD.

Negotiable Instrument Act Sec.138, 139 & 142 Stop payment instruction in case of post dated cheques Whether presumption u/s.139 could be invoked Cheques issued towards repayment of amount misappropriated by respondent Subsequent letter admitting liability but not

responsibility for that liability On facts and evidence presumption u/s.139 could be invoked. The object and the ingredients under the provisions of Secs.138 & 139 of the Act cannot be ignored. Proper and smooth functioning of all business transaction, particularly, cheques as instruments, primarily depends upon the integrity and the honesty of the party. In our Country, in large number of commercial transaction, it was noted that the cheques were issued even merely as a device not only to stall but even to defraud the creditors. The sanctity and credibility of issuance of cheques in commercial transaction was eroded to a large extent. Undoubtedly, dishonour of a cheque by the bank causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the payee and the entire credibility of the business transaction within and outside the Country suffers a serious set back. The Parliament, in order to restore the credibility of cheques as a trustworthy substitute for cash payment enacted the aforesaid provisions. The remedy available in a civil court is a long drawn matter and an unscrupulous drawer normally takes various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the payee.

ConclusionThis article does not claim to be all exhaustive one on the subject. But this should provide a basis and an insight into the main characteristics of the amendment to the N.I.Act. making bouncing of cheque a criminal offence. If this article kindles ones desire to know more, the main purpose can be considered as fulfilled.

Though insertion of the penal provisions have helped to curtail the issue of cheque lightheartedly or in a playful manner or with a dishonest intention and the trading community now feels more secured in receiving the payment through cheques. However there being no provision for recovery of the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque, in a case where accused is convicted under section 138 and the accused has served the sentence but, unable to deposit amount of fine, the only option left with the complainant is to file civil suit. The provisions of the Act do not permit any other alternative method of realization of the amount due to the complainant on the cheque being dishonored for the reasons of "insufficient fund" in the drawers account. The proper course to be adopted by the complainant in such a situation should be by filing a suit before the competent civil court, for realization/ recovery of the amount due to him for the reason of dishonoured cheque, which the complainant is at liberty to avail of if so advised in accordance with law.