Back
2013 Supreme(SC) 847
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S.P. Radhakrishnan and PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.
MSR LEATHERS – Appellant
Versus
S. PALANIAPPAN AND ANOTHER – Respondents
Criminal Appeals Nos. 261-64 of 2002
Decided on : September 10, 2013
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 – Offence of punishment – Argument - Appellant presented those four cheques on November and on presentation those cheques were returned by Bank with an endorsement not arranged funds for - At request of respondent appellant did not present said cheques since respondent agreed to settle dispute - However respondent failed to settle dispute subsequently - In these circumstances January appellant sent notice to respondent section Negotiable Instruments Act hereinafter referred to as Act - Respondent duly received said notice. Subsequent thereto those cheques were again presented before Bank on January by appellant - On presentation cheques were dishonored for want of sufficient funds – Held, Controversy in our opinion can be seen from another angle also - Decision in case supra is correct there is no option for holder to defer institution judicial proceedings even when he may like to do so for so simple and innocuous reason as to extend certain accommodation to drawer to arrange payment of amount - Apart from fact that an interpretation which curtails right of parties to negotiate possible settlement without prejudice right of holder to institute proceedings within outer period of limitation stipulated by law should be avoided we see no reason why parties should by process of interpretation be forced to launch complaints where they can or may like to defer such action for good and valid reasons - After all neither courts nor parties stand to gain by institution of proceedings which may become unnecessary if cheque amount is paid by drawer – Appeal allowed
Judgment :
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.
1. This matter was referred before the larger Bench by order dated 25th
March, 2009. The question referred to the larger Bench was : "whether the action of the appellant was time-barred under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act or not ?"
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondent issued four cheques to the appellant on 14th August, 1996. The appellant presented those four cheques on 21st November, 1996 and on presentation, those cheques were returned by the Bank with an endorsement "not arranged funds for". At the request of the respondent, the appellant did not present the said cheques since the respondent agreed to settle the dispute. However, the respondent failed to settle the dispute subsequently. In these circumstances, on 8th January, 1997, the appellant sent a notice (to the respondent) under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent duly received the said notice. Subsequent thereto, those cheques were again presented before the Bank on 21st January, 1997 by the appellant. On presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds.
3. On 28th January, 1997 the appellant sent a notice under Section 138(b) of the Act and called upon the respondent to pay the said amount with interest within 15 days. The respondent duly received the said notice on 3rd February, 1997.
4. From the said facts, it appears that while the first notice dated 8th January, 1997 was beyond the limitation period, as required under Section 138(b) of the Act, the second notice sent by the appellant under the Act was within the limitation period from the date the Bank informed the appellant on the second occasion, i.e., on 28th January, 1997. Thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint before the Trial Court on 4th March, 1997.
In the circumstances, the question arises whether the action of the appellant was time-barred under Section 138(b) of the Act or not.
5. The Division Bench since expressed their Lordships' reservation about the correctness of the law laid down in Sadanandan Bhadran vs. Madhavan Sunil Kumar [1998 (6) SCC 514] and felt that it requires to be considered by a larger Bench and the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for consideration.
6. Accordingly, the matter was placed before a larger Bench. Their Lordships, while deciding the said question, noticed that proviso to Section 138 stipulates following three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before dishonour of the cheque can constitute an offence and becomes punishable.
"...The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. The second condition is that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, ought to make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. The third condition is that the drawer of such a cheque should have failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice...."
Fulfilment of those three conditions constitutes an offence under Section 138 and it can then be said that an offence under the said section has been committed by the person issuing the cheque.
7. Their Lordships further noticed that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except when a complaint in writing is made by the payee or by the holder in due course and such complaint has to be made within one month from the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138. It i
