The offence of 'dishonor' of cheque excludes -
A. Strict liability
B. Absolute liability
C. Mens rea
D. All of the above
Answer: Option D
Solution (By Examveda Team)
Understanding Dishonor of Cheque:Imagine you write a check to someone, but there isn't enough money in your account to cover it. This is called "dishonor" of the check – the bank refuses to pay.
Legal Responsibility:
When a check bounces, there are legal consequences. The law generally holds the person who wrote the bad check responsible.
Types of Liability:
There are different kinds of legal responsibility (liability). Let's look at the options:
Strict Liability: Means you're responsible even if you didn't intend to do anything wrong. Think of it like a speeding ticket; you get it even if you didn't mean to go over the speed limit.
Absolute Liability: This is the strictest type. It means you are responsible no matter what, even if there's a valid reason for the dishonor (like a bank error).
Mens Rea: This is the "guilty mind." It refers to the intention to commit a crime. In the context of a dishonored check, it means did you *knowingly* write a check knowing there wasn't enough money?
The Question:
The question asks what the offense of "dishonor" of a check *excludes*. This means what element is NOT necessarily required to prove someone guilty.
The Answer:
The offense of dishonor often *does* involve strict liability (you're responsible for the bounced check) but it doesn't always require absolute liability or necessarily *mens rea* (intention to defraud). Therefore, the answer is that it often excludes mens rea. The law sometimes holds people responsible even without proving they intended to defraud anyone.
Join The Discussion
Comments (1)
The term 'legal representative' in section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
A. Does not include executors or administrator (Rama v. Praoin, AIR 1926 Mad 389)
B. Includes executors or administrator (K. Subbanna v. K. Subbarayudu, AIR 1926 Mad 390)
C. Includes executors but does not include administrators (P. Nayar v. T. Ramanna, AIR 1929 Mad 389)
D. Includes only administrators but does not include executors (P. K. Pati v. Damodar Sahu, AIR 1953 Ori 179)
In the case of a promissory note which is not negotiable
A. Notice of dishonour is compulsory
B. No notice of dishonour is necessary
C. Negotiable Instruments Act is silent on this aspect
D. Indorsement is necessary
The endorsement of a negotiable instrument is followed by delivery
A. Yes
B. No
C. Both (A) and (B)
D. None of the above
'Truncated Cheque' is dealt within which section of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
A. Section 5
B. Section 6
C. Section 7
D. Section 8

Explain the question