The cognizance of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be taken by the J.M.F.C. having territorial jurisdiction at the

In which of the following judgments has the Supreme Court held that only those courts within whose territorial limits the drawee bank is situated, would have jurisdiction to try the cases for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

A

K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 510

B

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathood v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2014) 9 SCC 129

C

State of Bihar and Others v. Kalyanpur Cement Limited, (2010) 3 SCC 274

D

None of the above

Not with standing anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no court . . . . . . . . that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) shall try any offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

A

Except

B

Inferior to

C

Superior to

D

Co-ordinate with

Consider the following statements for deflection and null type instruments: 1. Deflection type of instruments are more accurate than null type of instruments. 2. Deflection type of instruments can be highly sensitive as compared with the null type of instruments. 3. Null type of instruments are more suitable for measurements under dynamic conditions than deflection type of instruments. Which of the above statements are not correct?

A

1 and 2 only

B

1 and 3 only

C

1, 2 and 3

D

2 and 3 only

Which provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall be tried summarily?

A

Section 141

B

Section 142

C

Section 143

D

Section 144

A Court can take the cognizance of an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?

A

Upon Police Report

B

Upon Complaint

C

Upon self Knowledge of Magistrate

D

Upon other's knowledge

Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

A

Suo motu

B

Upon a complaint in writing made by the payee

C

Upon a police report

D

None of the above

The complaint for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has to be made:

A

Within 15 days of the cause of action

B

Within one month of the cause of action

C

Within three months of the cause of action

D

Within six months of the cause of action

Which one of the following is a prescribed period of limitation for taking cognizance to the Court against the offence committed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

A

60 days from the date of writing the cheque and if informed to the Court in writing only

B

90 days from the date of writing the cheque and if complaint made to the Court orally

C

15 days from the date of writing the cheque and if informed to the Court written or orally both

D

30 days from the date of cause of action arises if the complaint made in writing to the Court

Who is entitled to make a complaint for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

A

A public spirited citizen

B

The drawee bank

C

Only the holder of the cheque

D

All of these

No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 unless complaint is made, from the date of accrual of cause of action, within:

A

15 days

B

30 days

C

60 days

D

None of these

The cognizance of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be taken by the J.M.F.C. having territorial jurisdiction at the

Related Questions