Cheque-bounce cases: Courts must give second chance if lawyer absent, says this State HC

Justice Mary Joseph issued the directive after considering petitions filed by the CauveryBuild Tech Private Ltd through advocate BH Mansoor. An order passed by Kalamassery judicial first class magistrate court on March 30th this year were challenged before the high court.

The petitioner had approached the JFCM court with applications to condone the delay in filing complaints to launch prosecution for cheque-default case under section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The delay-condonation applications & the complaints were rejected by the JFCM court citing absence of complainant or lawyer when the case was called.

After considering the petitions challenging the JFCM court’s order, justice Mary Joseph said in the judgment, "The court concerned ought to have passed orders on merits in the petitions pending consideration. Rather than doing so, those were dismissed. The subordinate courts ought to have borne in mind that they are sitting not to curtail a party’s legitimate right to prosecute a case in a manner wrecking vengeance. In the case on hand, the court below ought to have granted a second chance for appearance of the complainant or his counsel."

The high court also pointed out that it was not a case where the lower court was in dark or was restrained from proceeding further due to the absence. Courts must be vigilant while denying the valuable right of a person to prosecute the case & that the absence of the counsel or the complainant may be due to a genuine reason, the high court said while noting that the complainant’s presence was not warranted in the case.

The JFCM court also failed in applying its mind to previous proceedings to see whether the complainant is a person vigilant in prosecuting his case, the high court said. Whether the character of the complainant is contumacious could only be discerned from the context of the case on previous occasions but the JFCM court’s order has no reference about it, the high court pointed out.

Granting one more opportunity to the complainant to prosecute his case on merits, the high court set aside the JFCM court’s order. Petitioner’s counsel told TOI that rejecting cheque-default cases citing absence of lawyer or complainant on the first hearing itself is a normal practice in lower courts, even though the complainant is not required to be present as he is represented by a lawyer instead.

Section 138 NI Act: Case not maintainable if account is blocked

High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that if bank account has been blocked, it cannot be treated as beiing maintained by the account holder and therefore, no liability can be attached to the drawer of cheque of that bank account.

A bench of Justice Bajaj has passed the order in the case titled as Rajesh Meena vs State of Haryana on 01.07.2019

It is argued on behalf of the complainant that of course the provisions of Section 138 NI Act do contemplate that the penal provisions would be attracted in case the cheque in question is dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" or "the amount exceeds the arrangement", but these provisions have been interpreted on number of occasions by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it was held that in cases where the account is "closed" or "payment was stopped" by drawer even then complaint under Section 138 NI Act would be maintainable. It is vehemently argued that on the same analogy, the complaint is maintainable as it is not disputed by the accused that the blocked account belongs to it which resulted in dishonour of the cheques. According to the respondent, the trial Court has passed the summoning order carefully after examining the material on record and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

High Court observed "A careful analysis of Section 138 NI Act reveals that the first and foremost requirement to maintain the complaint under Section 138 NI Act is that the cheque issued by the account holder must be from the account maintained by account holder with the drawer-Bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability".

High Court further observed and held "Therefore, the said expression "account maintained by him" cannot be construed narrowly to mean that if the account belongs to the accused, the necessary ingredient would be complete. This expression "account maintained by him" must necessarily include that the said account is not only alive and operative, but the account holder is capable of executing command to govern the financial transactions which include the clearance of cheques etc. The authority and control of the account holder upon the account must exist on the effective date i.e. when the cheque becomes valid for presentation in the bank. It is settled law that mere issuance of a cheque is not an offence, but it becomes punishable when the said cheque is dishonoured. Mere fact that the record of the drawer bank shows a particular name as account holder would not be sufficient to establish that account is being maintained by the account holder, unless the said account holder holds the authority and control over the said account. In other words, if an account holder is deprived off his authority, control and dominion over the bank account, it cannot be said that the account is being maintained by the said account holder".

 

Section 138 NI Act: Demand Notice sent to director is sufficient notice to company

Section 138 NI Act: Demand Notice sent to director is sufficient notice to company [Read the Order]

Section 138 NI Act: Demand Notice sent to director is sufficient notice to company [Read the Order]

Recently, Supreme Court has upheld an order of the Delhi High Court wherein it was observed that demand notice issued to director is sufficient notice to the company.

A bench of Justice Sapre and Justice Malhotra has passed the order in the case titled as M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of NCT of Delhi on 30.07.2019.

Supreme Court observed "Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are   not   inclined   to   interfere   with   the   impugned order passed by the High Coourt". 

It then observed and held "In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not call for any interference. The   Special   Leave   Petition   is accordingly dismissed".

Read also : Mediation in Cheque Bounce Cases: A critical analysis of DB Judgment on Sec.138 NI Act Cases

Earlier, the matter was dealt with by the Delhi High Court in the case titled as Sarabjit Singh vs State on 08.10.2019.

Delhi High Court had noted:

Read also : Section 138, NI Act: Position of Law on Cheque Bounce and Punishment in India By: Akanksha Yadav

"After the said cheques had been returned unpaid, the complainant had sent a legal notice of demand on 01.11.2007. It does appear that the said notice of demand was addressed to the third respondent. But then, it is also clear that the third respondent was not called upon by the said demand notice to be accountable for any personal liability. Reference was made to the three cheques, which concededly had been issued against the account of the company. The notice thus was addressed to the third respondent in his capacity as the director of the company accused, calling him upon to pay against the cheques which had been returned dishonoured. That the notice of demand was directed against the company is how the said notice of demand was understood not only by the third respondent but also by the second respondent. This is reflected by the fact that the reply dated 19.11.2007 to the demand notice was sent not by the third respondent but for and on behalf of the company i.e. the second accused by its authorized representative".

It then observed:

"The scrutiny of the case by the revisional court for purposes of examining as to whether the Metropolitan Magistrate could have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr. PC was apparently mis-directed. It examined the case from the perspective of its maintainability against the third respondent which was not a correct approach. It ignored the settled principle that notice to director of the company was sufficient notice to the company".

 

Do The NI Act Amendments Apply Retrospectively?

Two new sections under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act) have come into force with effect from 01.09.2018 by way of Amendment Act No. 20:

S.143-A gives the Magistrate trying an offence under the Act the discretion to award interim compensation to the complainant against the drawer up to a maximum of 20% of the cheque amount after notice/charge has been framed upon an accused and he pleads not guilty.

S.148 provides that in an appeal by the drawer/accused against a conviction under Section 138, the appellate court may direct the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial court.

As per Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 no new act shall apply retrospectively unless the same is specifically expressed. Therefore, the amendments should not affect those cases where complaints have been instituted prior to 01.09.2018. Complainants have however tried to take advantage of the new amended sections and moved applications in complaints filed prior to 01.09.2018 seeking interim compensation. While appellate courts during the course appeals arising from complaints instituted prior to 01.09.2018 have been ordering a deposit of a minimum of 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial courts.

How have courts across India responded to the new amendments and do they apply to those cases where complaints instituted prior to 01.09.2018?

The Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi

^[1] while dealing with S. 148 of the Act held that complaints filed prior to the amendment in which appeals have been preferred after the amendment there would be no legal impediment in an appellate court directing the accused to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine/compensation imposed by the trial court. The Supreme Court further held that Section 148 would even apply to appeals filed prior to the amendment. This judgment is silent however on the retrospective application of the S. 143.

In Ajay Vinodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra

^[2], the Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where a challenge was laid to the order of an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dated 03.08.2019 whereby the ASJ directed the appellants to deposit 25% of the compensation amount as a condition precedent to maintain bail during the appeal and entertain the appeal. The petitioner had also unsuccessfully challenged the constitutional validity of the new sections. The High Court held that the ASJ's direction to deposit a percentage of the amount of compensation to be legal. However, it further held that the same could not be a condition precedent to entertain the appeal or for the appellants to remain on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court held in paragraph 27 that:

"in the present case, the impugned orders are passed on 03.08.2018 by the learned Magistrate and the amendment came into force on 01.09.2018. Obviously, in the order dated 03.08.2019, Section 148 is not mentioned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He did not intend to pass the order under Section 148 but it is to be understood that the learned sessions judge passed the order under the Code of Criminal Procedure by using the powers of the criminal court to impose putting condition at the time of granting bail."

Even though, the impugned order did not consider S. 148 of the Act, the High Court while hearing the challenge to the same thought it fit to refer to the same.

In V. Narsimha Murthy v. Santosh J.

^[3], the Karnataka High Court, held that S. 148 of Act can apply to cases where conviction was ordered prior to amendment. Here the High Court while hearing a revision against an appeal preferred by the accused directed the accused to deposit 70% of the cheque amount before the trial court. During the course of the revision before the High Court the complainant moved an application seeking release of the money deposited in his favor. The High Court held that:

"when the enactment has been made as a beneficial legislation, to protect the interest of the complainant and to provide a relief and to avoid and discourage frivolous appeals and litigation, then under such circumstances, a wider interpretation has to be made and not a restricted interpretation as held in the case of S. L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Another (cited supra). It is not express provision which has to be taken into consideration but it can take even the necessary implication and give retrospective operation. In that light, this court can give the retrospective effect to the said Section.".

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Ginni Garments and Anr. v. Sethi Garments

^[4], was dealing with 2 sets of cases – 1) where applications under S. 143-A of the Act were allowed in cases where complaints had been instituted prior to the amendment and 2) where applications under S. 148 were allowed in appeals arising out of complaints instituted prior to the amendment. This is the only case where both S. 143-A and 148 have been examined in great length with regard to their retrospective application. It is also pertinent to mention that there was no constitutional challenge to the vires of the sections. The High Court held that S.143-A does not apply retrospectively since it creates a new obligation upon the accused person which did not exist prior to the amendment whereas, S. 148 does apply retrospectively as no new obligation has been created upon the accused person. The High Court held that S. 148 was applicable retrospectively because prior to the amendment courts already had the power to recover fine/compensation imposed via S. 421 and S.424 of the Cr.P.C. –

"Since provisions for recovery of fine or compensation from the appellant/convict already existed in the existing procedure relating to the recovery, therefore the provision introduced vide Section 148 of the Act; which relates only to recovery of amount partly, as interim measure, has to be treated purely procedural only, which is otherwise also beneficial for the appellant as compared to the pre-existing provisions."

The Madras High Court, in G.J.Raja v. Tejraj Surana, upheld the order of a magistrate directing the accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation to the complainant. The High Court judgment does not disclose whether the complaint was filed prior to or post the amendment. The judgment of the High Court is now under challenge before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3342/2019. The order where by notice was issued in the Supreme Court gives a clear indication of the factual position:

"Issue involved in this matter is whether Section 143-A introduced by the Amendment Act No.20 of 2018 in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has retrospective application or not?"

An examination of these judgments shows that the majority view is that S.148 does apply retrospectively whereas on S.143-A there is no such consensus. The Supreme Court will now surely clear the air over the retrospective application of Section 143-A of the Act.

Shiv Chopra is an advocate practicing in Delhi.

[The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of LiveLaw and LiveLaw does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same]

---

[1] 2019 SCC OnLine SC 739

[2] 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 436

[3] I.A. No. 3/2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 425/2018

[4] 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 747

Section 148 NI Act: If accused fails to deposit 20% amount, his appeal may not be entertained

Delhi High Court has modified the  if pre-deposit of 20% fine amount is not made by accused within six weeks from today, then his appeal be not entertained.

bench of Justice Gaur has passed the Order in the case titled as BIRENDRA SHUKLA vs STATE on 28.05.2019.

High Court was dealing with a case where an accused was convicted for the cheque bounce and when he filed an appeal, he was directed to deposit 20% of the fine amount. Impugned order of 26th April, 2019 rejects petitioner’s application for waiver of the condition of deposit of 20% of the total fine amount imposed vide order 31st January, 2019. The Appellate Court in the impugned order has taken note of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has referred to the decision of High Court of Bombay in Ajay Vinodchandra Shah vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 436 and the decision of High court Punjab & Haryana in Nitin Shashwat and Another vs. M/s Ajanta Timbers and Another (Crl M. 22839/2018 decided on 13th February, 2019). In the impugned order, the Appellate Court has distinguished the decision of High Court of Bombay in Ajay Vinodchandra Shah (Supra), as the said decision relates to an order passed under Cr.P.C. prior to coming into force of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018.

High Court of Delhi observed and held “In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the direction issued by the Appellate Court to make pre-deposit of 20% of fine amount is justified. However, the consequence of non-deposit of fine, entailing cancellation of petitioner’s bail is onerous one. Instead thereof, it is directed that if pre- deposit of 20% fine amount is not made by petitioner within six weeks from today, then petitioner’s appeal be not entertained. Finding the impugned order to be otherwise well reasoned, this petition and applications are dismissed with cost of ₹25000/- to be paid by petitioner to respondent at the time of hearing of the appeal, if the pre-deposit is made by petitioner within the above stipulated time”.

NI Act S.138 – Omission in the notice to mention about nature of debt or liability, does not render it invalid

*LATEST  JUDGEMENTS*

*NI Act S.138 – Omission in the notice to mention about nature of debt or liability, does not render it invalid -- 2019 (3) KHC 105*

*No notice/summons shall be sent directly to person residing in a foreign country -- 2019 (3) KHC 118 (DB)*

*High Court quashing proceedings, between husband and wife, in terms of settlement – Such an order can be recalled when there is breach of settlement -- 2019 (3) KHC 114*

*Insufficiently stamped instrument – Penalty can be imposed only if instrument is sought to be admitted in evidence -- 2019 (3) KHC 136 (DB)*

*Art.226 – In child custody matters, writ of habeas corpus is maintainable -- 2019 (3) KHC 167 (SC)*

*LPG – Renewal of licence – Dealer need not secure a fresh lease deed from landlord -- 2019 (3) KHC 110*

*DV Act — Brother of the deceased husband can be ordered to pay interim maintenance -- 2019 (3) KHC 164 (SC)*

*BRC Act — Pendency of a Civil Suit, seeking a decree for realisation of arrears of rent or existence of a decree for the same, does not preclude Landlord from instituting a RCP, seeking an order of eviction under S.11(2)(b), on the ground of arrears of rent, of the same period -- 2019 (3) KHC 206 (DB)*

*Victim giving consent for sexual intercourse on the promise made by accused that he would marry her – When accused has married victim within a short period, it cannot be said that accused commented rape on the victim -- 2019 (3) KHC 199*

*Selection process – When a genuine doubt arises as regards correctness of answer key, Court in that event should give benefit of doubt to examination authority, PSC -- 2019 (3) KHC 193 (DB)*

*PIL in respect of alleged wrongful sale of property of religious bodies – Not maintainable -- 2019 KHC 6519 -- 2019 (3) KHC SN 5 (SC)*

*Manager of Nationalised Bank cannot claim benefit of S.197 CrPC -- 2019 KHC 6512 -- 2019 (3) KHC SN 6 (SC)*

*Non-applicability of S.149 is no bar in convicting accused persons under S.302, provided there is evidence which discloses commission of offence in furtherance of common intention -- 2019 KHC 6420 -- 2019 (3) KHC SN 7 (SC)*

*NI Act S.138 — There is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability -- 2019 (3) KHC 105*

*Defendant residing in USA – In such cases, summons/notice, for service in USA are to be sent directly by the Courts to the Process Forwarding International, 633 Yesler way, Seattle, WA 98104, USA along with required fee -- 2019 (3) KHC 118 (DB)*

*Police Act S.119(1)(a) – In the absence of recital, in the complaint or the first information report, as to the specific gesture or act performed by accused, which according to the prosecution, was degrading to the dignity of women; offence under Section 119(1)(a) would not be attracted -- 2019 (3) KHC 132*

*Stamp Act S.33 – Court has power to impound an insufficiently stamped instrument, when the said instrument is produced before it -- 2019 (3) KHC 136 (DB)*

*Production of insufficiently stamped instrument, but not sought to be admitted in evidence – A person who failed to meet expenses for providing proper stamp under Section 30 alone can be made liable to pay penalty -- 2019 (3) KHC 136 (DB)*

*IPC S.376 — Where accused has married de facto complainant and they have decided to settle all the disputes, High Court can quash proceedings -- 2019 (3) KHC 146*

*IPC S.97 — A mere reasonable apprehension is enough for accused to exercise his right of private defence – Accused need not even plead self-defence -- 2019 (3) KHC 148 (DB)*

*Immoral Traffic Act — When there is no allegation that accused had kept or managed a brothel or acted or assisted in the keeping or management of a brothel, no offence is attracted -- 2019 (3) KHC 183*

*CrPC S.258 — Magistrate discharging accused owing to failure of prosecution to procure presence of accused before Court – Not proper -- 2019 (3) KHC 188*

*Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail, already granted -- 2019 (3) KHC 196*

*Arbitration – It is open to the parties to agree that no interest will be payable on amounts due to a contracting party for the period between date on which the cause of action arose and date of award -- 2019 (3) KHC 211 (DB)*

തട്ടിപ്പ് നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികളെ തിരിച്ചറിയാം

*തട്ടിപ്പ് നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികളെ തിരിച്ചറിയാം*

*നിയമങ്ങള്‍ കൊണ്ട് മാത്രം വ്യാജ നിക്ഷേ പ പദ്ധതികള്‍ക്ക് തടയിടാനാകില്ല, അവ തിരിച്ചറിയാനുള്ള കഴിവ് നിക്ഷേപകര്‍ക്ക് വേണം*

*പോണ്‍സി നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികള്‍ ഇല്ലായ്മ ചെയ്യുക എന്ന ലക്ഷ്യത്തോടെ കേന്ദ്ര സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ പാസാക്കിയ ‘ബാനിംഗ് ഓഫ് അണ്‍റെഗുലേറ്റഡ് ഡെപ്പോസിറ്റ് സ്‌കീംസ് ഓര്‍ഡിനന്‍സ് 2019’ ഫെബ്രുവരി 21 നു രാഷ്ട്രപതി ഒപ്പു വെച്ചു.*

*എന്നാല്‍ നിരോധനങ്ങള്‍ കൊണ്ട് മാത്രം ഇത്തരം വ്യാജ നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികള്‍ക്ക് തടയിടാനാവില്ല. നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികള്‍ വ്യാജമാണോ എന്ന് തിരിച്ചറിയാനുള്ള കഴിവ് ജനങ്ങള്‍ തന്നെ ആര്‍ജ്ജിക്കേണ്ടതുണ്ട്.*

*അമിത ലാഭം വാഗ്ദാനം നല്‍കി നിക്ഷേപങ്ങള്‍ സ്വീകരിച്ച് കബളിപ്പിച്ച സംഭവങ്ങള്‍ കേരളത്തില്‍ പുത്തരിയല്ല. ആട്തേക്ക്മാഞ്ചിയം തുടങ്ങി ടോട്ടല്‍ ഫോര്‍ യു മുതലായവയിലൂടെ ആയിരക്കണക്കിന് ആളുകളുടെ സമ്പാദ്യങ്ങള്‍ കവര്‍ന്ന പോണ്‍സി നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികള്‍ നിരവധിയുണ്ടായിട്ടുണ്ട് കേരളത്തില്‍.*

*ഈ അടുത്ത കാലത്തായി കോഴിക്കോട് കേന്ദ്രമായി റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ട് ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ട ഹീരാ ഗ്രൂപ്പിന്റെ ഇസ്ലാമിക നിക്ഷേപ തട്ടിപ്പിലെത്തി നില്‍ക്കുന്നു. പലിശരഹിത ലാഭവിഹിതം നല്‍കുമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞുകൊണ്ട് നടത്തിയ ഹീരാ ഗ്രൂപ്പിന്റെ ഈ നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതിയില്‍ ഒട്ടേറെ ഇസ്ലാംമത വിശ്വാസികള്‍ പണം നിക്ഷേപിച്ചു വഞ്ചിക്കപ്പെട്ടു.*

*താരതമ്യേന കുറഞ്ഞ വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ യോഗ്യതയുള്ള ആളുകള്‍ നടത്തുന്ന ഇത്തരം തട്ടിപ്പുകളില്‍ കുടുങ്ങുന്ന ആളുകളില്‍ നല്ലൊരു ശതമാനവും ഉയര്‍ന്ന വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ യോഗ്യതകള്‍ ഉള്ളവരാണ് എന്ന് കാണാം.*

*ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ വ്യക്തിഗത സാമ്പത്തിക കാര്യങ്ങളില്‍ ഉയര്‍ന്ന വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ യോഗ്യത ഉള്ളവര്‍ക്കു പോലും വേണ്ടത്ര സാക്ഷരത ഇല്ലെന്ന പഠന റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ടുകള്‍ ഇതോടൊപ്പം ചേര്‍ത്തു വായിക്കേണ്ടതാണ്. ഈ ഒരു സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍ എന്താണ് പോണ്‍സി നിക്ഷേപങ്ങള്‍, അവയെ എങ്ങനെ തിരിച്ചറിയാം, പോണ്‍സി നിക്ഷേപങ്ങളില്‍ കുടുങ്ങാതിരിക്കാന്‍ നിക്ഷേപകര്‍ ശ്രദ്ധിക്കേണ്ട കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ എന്തെല്ലാമാണ് എന്നെല്ലാം മനസിലാക്കുന്നത് നന്നായിരിക്കും.*

*പോണ്‍സി നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികള്‍ എന്നാലെന്താണ്?*

*കുറഞ്ഞ നഷ്ട സാധ്യതയും യാഥാര്‍ത്ഥ്യത്തിന് നിരക്കാത്ത ഉയര്‍ന്ന വരുമാനവും നിക്ഷേപ വളര്‍ച്ചയും വാഗ്ദാനം ചെയ്യുന്ന നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികളാണ് പോണ്‍സി നിക്ഷേപങ്ങള്‍. 1919ല്‍ അമേരിക്കയില്‍ ഇത്തരം ഒരു നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതി നടത്തി ശിക്ഷിക്കപ്പെട്ട ചാള്‍സ് പോണ്‍സി എന്ന ഇറ്റലി സ്വദേശിയായ വ്യക്തിയുടെ പേരില്‍ നിന്നാണ് പോണ്‍സി എന്ന പദം ഉരുത്തിരിഞ്ഞ് വന്നത്.*

*തുടക്കത്തില്‍ നിക്ഷേപകരുടെ പണത്തില്‍ നിന്ന് തന്നെ ഒരംശം എടുത്ത് ഉയര്‍ന്ന ലാഭവിഹിതം നല്‍കിത്തുടങ്ങുന്ന ഇത്തരം പദ്ധതികള്‍ അതുകൊണ്ടു തന്നെ പെട്ടെന്ന് ജനപ്രീതിയാര്‍ജ്ജിക്കുന്നു. എന്നാല്‍ കുറച്ച് കാലം കഴിഞ്ഞാല്‍ വരുമാനം നിലയ്ക്കുകയും നിക്ഷേപകര്‍ക്ക് തങ്ങള്‍ വഞ്ചിക്കപ്പെട്ടു എന്ന് മനസിലാകുകയും ചെയ്യും.*

*ചില പദ്ധതികളില്‍ ആദ്യകാലത്ത് ചേരുന്നവര്‍ക്ക് ഉയര്‍ന്ന വരുമാനം ലഭിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ പിന്നീട് നിക്ഷേപിക്കുന്നവരുടെ പണം മുഴുവന്‍ നഷ്ടമാവുന്നു. മികച്ച ശമ്പളം ലഭിക്കുമെന്നറിഞ്ഞ് മറ്റ് ജോലികള്‍ ഉപേക്ഷിച്ച് ഇത്തരം സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളില്‍ ജോലിക്ക് കയറിയവരും ഒടുവില്‍ പ്രതിക്കൂട്ടിലാവും.*

*എങ്ങനെ തിരിച്ചറിയാം?*

*പോണ്‍സി നിക്ഷേപങ്ങളെ തിരിച്ചറിയാനുള്ള ലക്ഷണങ്ങളും ചതിയില്‍ പെടാതിരിക്കാന്‍ സ്വീകരിക്കേണ്ട മുന്‍കരുതലുകളും എന്തൊക്കെയാണെന്ന് നോക്കാം.*

*ഉയര്‍ന്ന വരുമാനവും കുറഞ്ഞ നഷ്ട സാധ്യതയും: നിലവിലുള്ള നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികളേക്കാളേറെ വരുമാനവും കുറഞ്ഞ നഷ്ട സാധ്യതയും വാഗ്ദാനം ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കില്‍ ശ്രദ്ധിക്കുക. നഷ്ട സാധ്യതയില്ലാതെ പത്ത് ശതമാനത്തിലധികം വാര്‍ഷിക വരുമാനം നല്‍കാമെന്ന് ഉറപ്പ് നല്‍കുന്ന ഒരു നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതിയും സത്യമല്ല. നഷ്ട സാധ്യതയില്ലാത്ത ബാങ്ക് സ്ഥിരനിക്ഷേപങ്ങള്‍ പരമാവധി എട്ട് ശതമാനം പലിശ നല്‍കുമ്പോള്‍ നഷ്ടസാധ്യത കൂടുതലുള്ള ഓഹരികളില്‍ നിന്ന് പോലും പരമാവധി ഇരുപത് ശതമാനം വാര്‍ഷിക നേട്ടമേ പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കപ്പെടുന്നുള്ളൂ.*

*യുക്തിക്കു നിരക്കാത്ത കച്ചവട ആശയങ്ങള്‍: ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ ഉണ്ടായിട്ടുള്ള മിക്കവാറും എല്ലാ നിക്ഷേപ തട്ടിപ്പുകളുടെയും പുറകിലുള്ള കച്ചടവട സാധ്യതകള്‍ സാമാന്യ യുക്തിക്ക് നിരക്കുന്നവയായിരുന്നില്ല എന്ന് കാണാം. അതു കൊണ്ട് തന്നെ, വാഗ്ദാനം ചെയ്യപ്പെടുന്ന നിക്ഷേപങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് പുറകിലുള്ള കച്ചവടത്തിന്റെ സാധ്യതകളെക്കുറിച്ച് ചിന്തിക്കുക. അങ്ങനെ ഒരു കച്ചവടം നിങ്ങള്‍ നടത്തിയാല്‍ നഷ്ട സാധ്യതയില്ലാതെ ഇത്രമാത്രം വരുമാനം ലഭിക്കാന്‍ സാധ്യതയുണ്ടോ എന്ന് ആലോചിക്കുക.*

*റെഗുലേറ്ററി ബോഡികളില്‍ രജിസ്റ്റര്‍ ചെയ്യാത്ത സ്ഥാപനങ്ങള്‍: ഇന്ന് ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ ലഭ്യമായ യഥാര്‍ത്ഥ നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികളെല്ലാം കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്യുന്നത് റിസര്‍വ് ബാങ്ക് ഓഫ് ഇന്ത്യ, സെബി,* *ഇന്‍ഷുറന്‍സ് റെഗുലേറ്ററി ആന്‍ഡ് ഡെവലപ്പ്‌മെന്റ്* *അതോറിറ്റി, കോര്‍പ്പറേറ്റ് കാര്യ മന്ത്രാലയം മുതലായവയാല്‍*
*നിയന്ത്രിക്കപ്പെടുന്ന സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളാണ്. എന്നാല്‍ പോണ്‍സി നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികള്‍ ഇവയിലൊന്നും രജിസ്റ്റര്‍ ചെയ്തവയാവില്ല.*

*നിക്ഷേപങ്ങള്‍ തെരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുമ്പോള്‍ പദ്ധതിയുടെ അംഗീകാരം സംബന്ധിച്ച രേഖകള്‍ ആവശ്യപ്പെടുകയും ഔദ്യോഗിക വെബ്‌സൈറ്റുകള്‍ സന്ദര്‍ശിച്ച് അവ ശരിയാണെന്ന് ഉറപ്പു വരുത്തുകയും ചെയ്യുക.*

*ഇടനിലക്കാര്‍ക്കും ജീവനക്കാര്‍ക്കും ഉയര്‍ന്ന പ്രതി ഫലം: നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതിയിലേക്ക് ആളുകളെ ചേര്‍ത്ത് തരുന്നവര്‍ക്ക് ഉയര്‍ന്ന പ്രതിഫലം വാഗ്ദാനം ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കില്‍ അത് പോണ്‍സി നിക്ഷേപത്തിന്റെ ലക്ഷണമാണ്. സമാന മേഖലയില്‍ ഉള്ളതിനേക്കാള്‍ ഉയര്‍ന്ന ശമ്പളം വാഗ്ദാനം ചെയ്യുന്ന നിക്ഷേപ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളില്‍ ജോലിക്ക് ചേരുന്നവരും ശ്രദ്ധിക്കേണ്ടതുണ്ട്. ഒടുവില്‍ പദ്ധതി നടത്തിപ്പുകാരന്‍ മുങ്ങിയാല്‍ നിക്ഷേപകരോട് നിങ്ങള്‍ മറുപടി പറയേണ്ടി വരും.*

*നിക്ഷേപം പണമായി സ്വീകരിക്കല്‍:മിക്കവാറും എല്ലാ പോണ്‍സി പദ്ധതികളും നിക്ഷേപ തുക പണമായി സ്വീകരിക്കുന്നവയാണ്. എന്നാല്‍ ഈ അടുത്ത് റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ട് ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ട ചില പോണ്‍സി നിക്ഷേപങ്ങള്‍ അവ വിശ്വാസ യോഗ്യമാണെന്നു വരുത്താന്‍ ഓണ്‍ലൈന്‍ ആയും തുക സ്വീകരിക്കുകയുണ്ടായി. ഏത് നിക്ഷേപമായാലും നിക്ഷേപ തുക ചെക്ക് ആയോ ഓണ്‍ലൈന്‍ ട്രാന്‍സ്ഫര്‍ ആയോ മാത്രം നല്‍കുന്നത് ശീലമാക്കുക.*

*പലിശ രഹിത നിക്ഷേപങ്ങള്‍: ഇസ്ലാം മത വിശ്വാസികളെ ആകര്‍ഷിക്കാന്‍ ഇസ്ലാമിക് ബാങ്കിംഗ്, പലിശ രഹിത നിക്ഷേപങ്ങള്‍ എന്നിങ്ങനെയുള്ള പേരുകളില്‍ നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികള്‍ നടത്തുന്നവരുണ്ട്. ഇസ്ലാമിക കര്‍മ്മ ശാസ്ത്രമോ ഇന്ത്യയിലെ നിയമങ്ങളോ പാലിക്കപ്പെടാതെ നടത്തുന്ന ഇത്തരം നിക്ഷേപ പദ്ധതികളില്‍ ചെന്ന് ചാടാതിരിക്കാന്‍ ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ ഇന്ന് നിയമാനുസൃതമായ ഇസ്ലാമിക നിക്ഷേപങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള പഠനം അനിവാര്യമാണ്. ഇസ്ലാമിക കര്‍മ്മ ശാസ്ത്രം അനുസരിച്ച് നിക്ഷേപയോഗ്യമായ ഇക്വിറ്റി ഷെയറുകളില്‍ നേരിട്ടോ ശരീഅത്ത് മ്യുച്ചല്‍ ഫണ്ടുകള്‍ വഴിയോ നിക്ഷേപിക്കാവുന്ന സെബി അംഗീകൃതമായ മാര്‍ഗ്ഗങ്ങള്‍ തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുക.*

*(കോടഞ്ചേരി ഗവണ്‍മെന്റ് കോളെജ് പി ജി ഡിപ്പാര്‍ട്ട്‌മെന്റ് ഓഫ് കൊമേഴ്‌സ് അസിസ്റ്റന്റ് പ്രൊഫസറാണ് ലേഖകന്‍)*