A REPORT ON

A STUDY AND ANALYSIS ON NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENTS.

BY

YASH SINHA

19FLICHH010226

AT

MR.VIKAS ARORA

ADVOCATE

Page 1

1.

 “A STUDY AND ANALYSIS ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMESTS"

A REPORT

ON

(LEGAL INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 2021)

BY

YASH SINHA

19FLICHH010226, B.B.A.LLB(HONS.)

A Report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements,

BBA.LLB (Hons.) Program of ICFAI Law School, IFHE –
Hyderabad.

Distribution List:

ICFAI Law School, IFHE- Hyderabad

Advocate office of MR.Vikas Arora

Page 2

2.

 ACKNOWLEDEMENT

On the very onset of this project, I would like to thank ICFAI Law
School, IFHE-Hyderabad for providing this opportunity by
including Legal Internship Program (LIP) in the curriculum.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for D/r. Vikas Arora,

my project guide under whose guidance I have effectuated my
internship program for 6 weeks. I am forever grateful for your
support and encouragement. Thank you for giving your precious
time in guiding me.

I am also Thankful to my Faculty Guide, MR.Dilip Sharma,

Associate Professor for his support, advices and timely response.

I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to our management

and Head of the organization Prof. A.V. Narasimha Rao, Director,
ICFAI Law School for giving me an opportunity to do this project.

Page 3

3.

 INTRODUCTION:
In India, there is reason to believe that the exchange tool has been used
since ancient times and we find that currency representations were
brought to the country by one of the Mohammedan kings in Delhi in the
early fourteenth century. The word 'hundi', a common word used to
describe tools exchanged in the vernacular, is derived from the Sanskrit
root 'hand' meaning 'to collect' and clearly describes the purpose in which
the tools were used in the beginning. With the advent of the British
Empire in India commercial activity increased significantly. Rising
currency demands could not be met with the availability of coins; and the
debt instrument took over the financial function they represented.
Prior to the enactment of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, the law of
negotiation tools as is common in England was enforced by the Indian
Courts when any question related to such tools arose among Europeans.
By the time the groups were either Hindus or Mohammedans, their law
was held to be effective. Although Hindu or Mohammedan law books
contain any references to non-negotiable tools, customs that exist among
the public merchants should be recognized by the courts and used in
commerce between them. In time, a strong Hindu-related use of the
country was established, which even the Legislature could not without
hindrance to Indian banks and merchants. In fact, the Legislature saw the
potential for such use of land and although it may be necessary to exempt
it from the operation of the Act on the grounds that such use may be
termed with appropriate terminology. In the absence of such customary
law, the principles adopted in English law were applied to the Indians as
equality and a good conscience.
The history of the current Law is long. This law was originally drafted in
1866 by the Indian Law Commission and introduced in December, 1867
in Council and referred to the Select Committee. Opposition was raised
by the merchant community in many cases in violation of

Page 4

4.

 English law. The Bill had to be revised in 1877. Following an expiration

of sufficient time for criticism from Local Government, High Courts and
commercial departments, the Bill was reviewed by the Select Committee.
Despite this Bill you have not been able to reach the final stage. In 1880
by order of the Secretary of State, the Bill had to be referred to a new
Law Commission. According to the recommendation of the new Law
Commission this Bill was re- drafted and submitted to the Select
Committee which received most of the additions recommended by the
new Legal Commission. The fourth draft was thus introduced to Council
and passed into law in 1881 as the Negotiating Metals Act, 1881 (26 of
1881).

Page 5

5.

 DISHONOR OF CHEQUES:

138. Disrespect for arrears check, etc., of funds in

accounts
When any check is deducted by a person from his or her bank account to
pay any money to another person in that account in order to withdraw, in
whole or in part, any debt or other debt, it is refunded. by an unpaid bank,
because the amount owed on that account credit is not sufficient to
comply with the check or exceeds the amount due in the agreement by
that bank, that person shall be liable and without prejudice to any other
provisions of this Act, to imprisonment for a term of 2 years [ "for a
period not exceeding two years"], or for a fine that doubles the value of a
check, or both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section will work without-
(a) A check is submitted to the bank within a period of six months from
the date of withdrawal or during the period of validity, as the case may
be.
(b) The payer or the owner requesting the check, as the case may be,
applies for payment of that amount by giving notice, written, drawer,
check, ["within thirty days"] receiving information from the bank
regarding the return of checks as unpaid, and
(c) The clerk of such check fails to pay the amount due to the payer or, as
the case may be, to the owner in due course, within fifteen days of receipt
of the said notice.

Page 6

6.



OBJECT & REASONS FOR AMENDING THE

ACT (2002):
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was amended by the Banking,
Public Finance Institutions and Non-negotiable Appropriation Act
(Amendment) of 1988 where a new Chapter XVII was incorporated into
penalties in case of defamation of checks due to lack of funds in a check
clock account. These provisions were incorporated with the aim of
promoting a culture of checking and improving the reliability of the tool.
The provisions of the Negotiating Instruments Act, 1881, i.e., sections
138 to 142 of Chapter XVII have been found to be deficient in dealing
with non-compliance with checks. The courts cannot remedy such cases
immediately in a timely manner by considering the procedure contained
in the Act- (Part 1)
In view of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance
and other submissions, it is decided to publish, inter alia, the following
amendments to the Negotiating Tools Act, 1881, namely: -
(i) to increase the penalty as prescribed under the Act from one year to
two years;
(ii) extend the period for the issuance of a paid notice in the drawer from
15 days to 30 days;

Page 7

7.



VARIOUS AMENDMENTS:
Amendment of section 138
7. Section 138 of the Constitution, -
(a) in the words "period may be extended for one year", the words
"period may be extended for two years" shall be substituted;
(b) in the regulation, in subsection (b), of the words "within fifteen days",
the words "within thirty days" shall be substituted.
139. Pride in favor of the owner
It shall be deemed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of the
check has received a check of the kind referred to in section 138 to be
issued, in whole or in part, or in any debt or other debt.

140 .Possible defense is not permitted in any prosecution under section

138
It would not be a defense to the prosecution of a case under section 138
that the artist had no reason to believe when issuing a check that the
check could be defamed by presenting the reasons stated in that section.
1) If the person committing an offense under section 138 is a corporation,
every person, at the time the offense was committed, was responsible for,
and is responsible for, the company in conducting the company's
business, as well as the company, will be held liable and will be
prosecuted and punished
Provided that nothing contained in this clause will punish any person if
he or she proves that the offense was committed without his or her
knowledge, or that he or she did everything in his or her power to prevent
the offense.
2) Except for anything contained in the paragraph :-
(1) where any offense under this Act has been committed by a company
and subject to the consent of the perpetrator or collectively, or related, to
any negligence of any director, manager, secretary. or another company Page 8
official, that director, manager, secretary or other official, will also be
held liable in that case and will be held accountable and punished
accordingly.
8.

Definition: For the purposes of this section, -

a) "company" means any board organization and includes a firm or other
association of persons; and
b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in a company.
Amendment of section 141

8. In section 141 of the principal Act, in subsection (1), after the

regulation, the following conditions shall apply: -
"It is also provided that a person who has been appointed as a Director of
a company by virtue of his hold of office or function in the Central
Government or the State Government or a financial institution owned or
controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the
case may be, may not be liable under this Chapter."
142. Recognition of cases
a) Anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974)
-
no court shall consider any offense punishable under section 138 except
in a complaint, in writing, by a creditor or, as the case may be, by the
owner during the check;
b) such appeal is lodged within one month from the date on which the
cause of the action arises under subsection (c) of section 138;
c) no lower court than the City Magistrate or the Magistrate of the first
instance will try any case with a penalty under section 138.

Amendment of section 142

In section 142 of the Constitution, after subsection (b), the following
provisions shall be inserted, namely: -
Provided that consideration of the appeal may be taken by the Court after
the prescribed period, provided the plaintiff satisfies the Court with
sufficient reason not to lodge the appeal within that time.
Page 9
Installation of new sections after section 142

9.



After section 142 of the Constitution, the following sections shall be

inserted, namely.-

143. (1) Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

1) "With the exception of anything contained in the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (2 of 1974.), all cases under this Chapter shall be heard by a
Magistrate of the first instance or City Magistrate and the provisions of
sections 262 to 265. (both included) of the said Code, as the case may
be. , will apply to those tests:
Provided that in the case of a person convicted of a summary offense
under this section, it will be lawful for the Magistrate to impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year and a fine
of more than five thousand rupees:
Provided that at the commencement, or continuation, of the proceedings
under this section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case
is the same as that of imprisonment for more than a year. approved or that
for any other reason, in the absence of a summary trial, the Magistrate,
after hearing the parties concerned, will issue an order thereafter and
return any witness who may have been examined and proceed to the
hearing or reconsideration. in the manner provided by the said Code.
2) A trial under this section must, as far as possible, in accordance with
the interests of justice, be continued day by day until the conclusion,
unless the Court finds that a adjournment of the case beyond the next day
is necessary. for reasons that must be recorded.
(3) All proceedings under this section shall be effected expeditiously and
shall be subject to the completion of the proceedings within six months
from the date of the appeal.
144. How to issue a summons - Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), and for the purposes of
this Chapter, the Magistrate issuing a summons to the respondent or
witness may order a copy of the summons to be delivered to the place
where the accused or witness resides or operates or operates personally to
benefit, by sending speed or through courier services authorized by the
Court of Justice. Page

10.

FREQUENT QUESTIONS:
Q1. What can I do if the check is not honored due to insufficient funds.
What legal steps can I take to get this money canceled?
A. By default of check, a person may apply for a check for money and
expenses and interest under order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure
1908 (which is also abbreviated) and may also lodge a Criminal
Complaint u. / s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to punish the
signatory of the arrest warrant. However, before filing an appeal the legal
notice must be given to the other party.

Q2. I found my check to be invalid a few months ago. Issued by the

Company. What do I do now?
A. By disrespecting a company check you can apply for a value
proposition under CPC Order XXXVII. As you said the checks were not
honored in the last few months and you did not give notice to the
company you bring in its information the shame of the checks and the
check life is still valid which is usually six months from the date of issue.
Please submit a check again and upon receipt of any information about
fraudulent checks you will give immediate notice within 30 days of
receiving the company's non-compliance check. If the company does not
pay the amount within 30 days from receipt of the notice, you can lodge a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiatble Instrument Act. The said
appeal must be lodged within one month at the end of the 30-day notice
period.
Q3. Our software distribution co. During our business we have provided
software development that costs Rs.3 lacs. But our customer does not
respect the check. We filed a lawsuit against him after he paid us Rs. 1 lac
then ran away. We know nothing about his whereabouts. The court has
issued a criminal notice, but now we do not know how to track him
Page
down. He has closed his account and the banks do not share information
similar to his other address. May I ask for advice?

11.
A. Conclude the trial of the Declaration of the Criminal. Defendant will
be declared Proclaimed Offender and may be arrested at any time. At this
stage, you can't do anything else. However, at the same time you can file
a Suit for Recovery with the defendant's last known address.
Q4. I have an irreverent check. I informed the person in writing, but no
response, what should be done to register a cheating case, and where
should it be placed? The bank location, where the check was not honored
or the place where the check was issued?
A. Once you have notified the person about the fraudulent check, in the
event that information is provided within 30 days from the checking of
the check, you may lodge a complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act within one month after the expiration date. 30
day notice period. A cheating complaint is not legally attended to. In
some cases, however, police have registered cases of cheating on
suspects.
Q5. I have empty checks given to me by a partner company. Since I owed
them the money I had lent them. Without checks and account statements.
I have nothing else. Suppose that one day, I suddenly found out that they
had closed down a corporation and disbanded it, Can I file a check now
and formally file a lawsuit against them and how?
A. You must complete the checks and withdraw the money. Partnership
Firm and partners have a personal responsibility and even after the
dissolution of the company and partners are responsible. If you have a
defamatory check you must apply for the prescribed fee under the
summary procedure provided in Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. You must also lodge a complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Metals Act. For this you will need to first give notice, within
30 days of checking the check. Then if payment is not made within 30
days of receipt of the notice the complaint must be lodged within 30 days
thereafter.

Page

12.
PRESENTMENT OF CHEQUES:
The presentation is a requirement where the negotiator tool holder is
required to do something according to the tool instructions. It is a
demonstration tool for the artist, recipient or maker to be accepted,
recognized or paid.

The Negotiable instruments Act 1881, (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

has dealt with the whole matter. The whole process is set out on how the
negotiated tool should be presented.
Presentation Types
There are various ways in which a presentation can be made. Of course:
Welcome presentation
Presentation of promise notes to show Payment Presentation
Welcome presentation
There are only certain types of exchange loans that need to be accepted.
The bill is accepted when the defendant attaches his signature to a tool
that indicates his consent to the order of the drawer to pay the debt if
appropriate. The nominee is not guilty until he or she accepts the bill. He
expresses his acceptance by signing his name in the bill.
The candidate may write that they are welcome but not required. Once
the nominee has accepted the bill he or she becomes known as the
recipient.
The following are the requirements for valid admission:
1. It must be written into the bill. The nominee puts the accepted words
on the face of the loan or on the back and pastes his or her signature
below the words.
2. The sweetheart must sign the bill himself or her authorized agent.Page
The
nominee is guilty only if he or she approves the bill and not before. He or

13.
she will not be held liable before acceptance as he or she is not part of the
instrument.
3. If the bill is approved it must be submitted to the owner. Acceptance
will not help until the bill is presented to the owner.
If a bill is drafted in sets the approval should be only partial. In the event
that he sets out his acceptance of more than one part then he shall be
guilty of all.
A bill payable on demand or after a certain number of days from a
specific day or day may be introduced for adoption unless it is clearly
stated in the instrument that needs to be introduced for adoption. But in
some cases a bill needs to be introduced in order to be adopted; namely:
• A bill that states that it must be introduced for approval before it is
introduced for payment; • Fees payable after seeing or after presentation
to adjust its maturity.
A person must get a bill introduced for approval even if he or she chooses
to do so. This helps to secure additional security and gives you the right
to take action in the event of non- compliance.
The Bill may be accepted by:
General Receipt
Acknowledgment is common or complete when being drawn into, when
accepting a bill, without attachment to any condition or qualification in
it.1 If the admission is not complete, the owner may treat the bill as
disrespectful of not accepting it.
Eligible Welcome:
If a condition is set for the acceptance of a submission it means that the
qualification is accepted.2 Appropriate acceptance in clear terms changes
the effect of the bill. In such cases the owner may refuse to accept the
condition and treat the bill as disrespectful in the form of non-acceptance.
However, if he agrees to do so by putting himself at risk and exempts all
previous parties unless he obtains the consent of those parties.
The appropriate acceptance is therefore: Page

Conditional, eg: Payment received when goods shipped to me are sold;

14.
In part, that is, only part of the bill. For example, the bill was 500 and
was only accepted by 200.
Qualified as placement i.e., paid only locally. Eg: accepted payment at
Royal Bank of Scotland only.
You are eligible for the term, that is, to pay at a time that is not specified
in the bill. Eg: debt paid after a certain day. Payment is accepted after six
months from the date.
Adoption by some painters but not all. Eg A bill drawn in Z, C and Y but
accepted by Z only.
Welcome submission is made to:
• Drawee;
• All or a few others drawn;
• Drawee if necessary; All artists, if there are many artists unless they are
participants or agents of each other;
• Duly authorized artist's agent;
• Legal representative if the person is deceased;
• His or her legal recipient or nominee is declared debt free.
When and where the presentation will be made
• If the time is mentioned in the bill it must be introduced for approval at
any time before payment. If the bill is paid where you see it then the
introduction is mandatory within a reasonable time after the same release.
• A bill must be introduced for adoption in the area specified in the bill
for introduction. If no location is specified, the bill will be introduced in
the area where the nominee has his or her business or residence.
• As per section 63 of the Act, the owner must give at least 48 hours to
pass the bill.
Circumstances in which the submission of admission is released:
Admission submission is released if:
• The drawee is not available after a thorough search;
Page
• When the drawee is dead or in debt. Section 75 of the law stipulates that
the instrument may be presented to the legal representatives of the
deceased or assigned to the insolvent but not necessarily;
15.






• The nominee is a nominee or potential contractor;
• Where, although the presentation was unusual, acceptance was rejected
for some reason.

Page

16.


CASE STUDIES:
Case study 1
HC order quashed in cheque dishonour case
R.N. Sahai
AFTER the cheques were dishonoured by the bank, the payee had served
due notice and yet there was a failure on the part of the accused to pay the
money, who had signed the cheques, as the Director of the company. The
impugned order of the High Court, the refore, is liable to be quashed.
So far as the criminal complaint is concerned, once the offence is
committed, any payment made subsequent thereto will not absolve the
accused of the liability of criminal offence, though in the matter of
awarding of sentence, it may have some effect on the court trying the
offence.
But by no stretch of imagination, a criminal proceeding could be quashed
on account of deposit of money in the court or that an order of quashing
of criminal proceeding, which is otherwise unsustainable in law, could be
sustained because of the deposit o f money in this court.
That was the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajneesh Aggarwal vs.
Amit J. Bhalla (Criminal Appeal Nos. 10-12 of 2001 decided on January
4, 2001) by a Division Bench comprising Mr Justice G.B. Pattanaik and
Mr Justice U.C. Banerjee.
In this case, a single judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed
three criminal complaints filed under Section 138 read with Section 141
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaints related to
dishonour of three cheques given to RA amou nting to Rs 2,32,600. The
cheques were presented for encashment, but were returned with the
endorsement, ``payment stopped by the drawer''.
RA served notices on AJB calling upon him to pay the amount of cheques
within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Since he failed to pay the
amount, the complaints were filed in the court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kullu. The Magistrate proceede d to hold inquiry, and,
thereafter, took cognisance of the offence and directed issuance of
Page
process.

17.
AJB challenged that order by filing an application under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, inter alia, on the ground that the
stoppage of payment does not constitute an offence, and service of notice,
as contemplated under proviso (b) o f Section 138 of the Act has not been
proved.
Those petitions were dismissed by the High Court. It was held that in
view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Modi Cements Ltd vs.
Kuchil Kumar Nandi JT 1998 (2) SC 198, there is no merit in any of the
petitions.
It was, however, observed that the accused shall be at liberty to raise all
such points during the trial of the case. After dismissal of the application
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, AJB filed an
application before the magistrate f or recalling the issuance of process.
The magistrate dismissed those applications.
RA, therefore, filed the petitions before the High Court again under
Section 482. Before the High Court, he contended that:
(1) Cheques had been issued in the capacity of the Director of the
company to whom the watches were supplied, but the complaint had been
filed without impleading the company as accused and as such the same
was not maintainable
(2) In the absence of notice, as contemplated by Clause (b) of the proviso
to Section 138 to the drawer of the cheque, that is the company, the
criminal proceedings could not be proceeded with.
The High Court rejected the first contention, and held that the criminal
prosecution would lie without impleading the company of which AJB is
the Director.
Regarding the second contention, the High Court came to the conclusion
that the notice by the complainant, having been issued to AJB in his
individual capacity, and not having been issued to the company, no
offence could be said to have been committed by the company.
Therefore, the criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded against the
company by taking recourse to Section 141. RA filed appeals to the
Supreme Court against this conclusion of the High Court.
Page
The Supreme Court after hearing the two sides identified two questions
for their consideration.

18.
(1) Was the High Court justified in coming to the conclusion that the
drawer has not been duly served with notice for payment?
(2) Whether the deposit of the entire amount covered by three cheques,
while the matter is pending in the Supreme Court, would make any
difference?
Regarding the first question, the judges observed that it was no doubt true
that all the three requirements under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) must be
complied with before the offence under Section 138 could be said to have
been committed, and Section 141 in dicated as to who would be the
persons, liable in the event the offence was committed by a company.
The High Court itself on facts, has recorded the findings that conditions
(a) and (b) under Section 138 have been duly complied with and,
therefore, the only question is whether the conclusion of the High Court
that condition (c) has not been complied wi th, can be said to be in
accordance with law.
The judges then pointed out that a mere dishonour of a cheque would not
give cause of an action unless the payee makes a demand in writing to the
drawer of the cheque for the payment, and the drawer fails to make the
payment of the said amount of money t o the payee.
In this case, the cheques had been issued by Bhalla Techtran Industries
Ltd through its Director, Mr Amit Bhalla. The appellant had issued a
notice to Mr Bhalla.
Notwithstanding the service of the notice, the amount in question was not
paid. The object of issuing notice indicating the factum of dishonour of
the cheques was to give an opportunity to the drawer to make payment
within 15 days, so that it would not be necessary for the payee to proceed
against in any criminal action, even though the bank dishonoured the
cheques.
It was Mr Amit Bhalla, who had signed the cheques as the Director.
When the notice was issued to Mr Amit Bhalla, Director of Bhalla
Techtran Industries Ltd, it was incumbent upon Mr Bhalla to see that the
payments were made within the stipulated period o f 15 days.
The judges then proceeded to assert that bearing in mind the object of
issuance of such notice, it must be held that the notices cannot be Page
construed in a narrow technical way without examining the substance of
the matter.
19.
They also observed that they really failed to understand as to why the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Bilakchand Gyanchand Co 1999 (5)
SCC 693, would have no application.
In that case also, criminal proceedings had been initiated against AC, who
was the managing director of the company, and the cheques in question
had been signed by him.
In the aforesaid premises, there was no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that the High Court had committed an error in recording a
finding that there was no notice to the drawer of the cheque, as required
under Section 138 of the Act.

Page

20.
CASE STUDY 2
Cheque dishonour case referred back to Magistrate court
R.N. Sahai
ON facts of the case, no exception can be taken against the order of the
Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the sick company and its
directors. The ingredients of Section 138 bein g prima facie established
from the complaint, and the documents filed with it, the Magistrate
rightly took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the
appellants.
Further, Section 22 of SICA does not create any legal impediment for
instituting and proceeding with a criminal case on the allegation of an
offence under Section 138 of the Act against a company or its directors.
Hence there is no good reason in favour of the prayer for quashing the
criminal proceedings or for keeping the proceedings in abeyance. It will
be open to the appellants to place relevant materials in this regard before
the Magistrate before whom the cases are pending, and the Magistrate
will examine the matter keeping in mind the discussions made in this
judgment.

In this manner did the Supreme Court dispose of the appeals in Kusum
Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs. Penmar Peterson Securities Ltd (Criminal Appeal
Nos. 212-216 of 2000 decided on February 23, 2000) by a Division Bench
comprising Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra.
In this case, the post-dated cheques were issued on behalf of the company
in favour of the complainant in course of business of the company. When
the complainant presented the cheques in the bank, they were returned
without payment. Then the complainant issued notice to the company
and/or its directors stating the facts of dishonour of the cheques, and
demanding payment.
Since no payment was made within the period of 15 days stipulated under
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act), the payee filed complaint
against the company and/or its directors alleging inter alia that they had
committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Page

In case of restraint order, it may reasonably be said that the dishonoring

of the cheque by the bank and failure to make payment of the amount by
21.
the company and/or its directors is for reasons beyond the control of the
accused. In such circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and against
the intent and purpose of the statute to hold that the directors should be
compelled to face trial in a criminal case.

Page

22.
CONCLUSION:
Dishonour of a cheque would not give cause of an action unless the payee
makes a demand in writing to the drawer of the cheque for the payment,
and the drawer fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to
the payee. A note which is payable at a certain period after sight must be
presented to the maker for sight in order to get its maturity fixed and
promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheque must be presented to the
maker, acceptor or drawee on behalf of the holder for presentment.
Thus, it can be concluded that presentment is a demand by which the
holder of a negotiable instrument is required to do something as per the
directives of the instrument. Once the same is done it becomes payable.

Page

23.
 OUTCOME OF THE PROJECT

This summer internship programme has given me a worth

remembering overview of the convolutions and challenges which
I may face in this profession. Through this internship, I have
learnt many new things about the provisions of the acts which
were given to me as assignment by the organisation. At times it
was dif icult for me to research on this particular topic because of
its complexity but keeping aside the dif iculty, it was a very good
opportunity for me to grasp new information and to sharpen my
knowledge through this internship.

This SIP in its way has proved to be a major success in imbedding

in me the professionalism, which is required in every advocate
and every of ice. A very important aspect of what I have learnt in
this internship would be that no job is a small job, and every act
leads to a single inal act which is a job well done. I’ve had also
been aware of the noble attribute of patience and hard work
which is the only key to success in our profession, since our
profession is the noblest of all.

The aim of this report is to draw attention to the signi icance of

bail and its allegations. This report is made in order to highlight
the importance of them in our contemporary society and how
vital part it plays. This report further highlights the key essential

points one needs to remember whenever there is an infringement

Page
of
these rights, they can ight against it and question back.

24.

f
f
f
f

 REFRECENCES

1. BARE ACT:
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. WEBSITES:
• http://www.manupatra.com/
• h ps://indiankanoon.com/
• h p://www.the-laws.com/
• https://www.casemine.com/

Page

25.
tt
tt