KERALA HIGH COURT
Pratap Singh, J.
Revathi - Petitioner
versus
Asha Bagree - Respondent
Cri. Misc. P. Nos. 13967 & 13970 of 1990
Decided on 20-8-1991
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner -K.V. Venkatapathy For the Respondent -K.A. Panchapagesan
(ii) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138(b) - Notice in writing calling upon drawer to make payment of arrears of all the cheques including cheques covered by the complaint - Does notice suffers any illegality? No. (Para 7)
Result: Petition dismissed
Pratap Singh. J.- The accused in C.C. No. 2489 and 2490 of 1990 on the file of V II Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, has filed these petitions under section 482, Cr. P.C. praying to call for the records in the aforesaid C.C. No. 2489 and 2490 of 1990 and quash the same.
2. In C.C. No. 2489 of 1990, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner. The allegations in it are briefly as follows:
The complainant is a private limited company. The accused is proprietrix of M/s. Premier Agency, Ramnagar, Coimbatore. Her husband was the Manager of Coimbatore Branch of petitioner company. In November 1988, large scale defalcation committed by Sethuraman was detected by the complainant On 23-8-1989, when Mrs. Asha Bagree went to Coimbatore, the accused and her husband came for a settlement and the accused issued 19 cheques for a total sum of Rs.5,48,000 drawn on Syndicate Bank in favor of the complainant company. The cheques dated 30-8-1989, 25-9-1989 and 25-10-1989 for Rs.13,000, Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 25,000 were sent by the complainant along with three more cheques for collection. They were returned with endorsement "Refer to Drawer" on 16-2-1990. The complainant was informed that these cheques had been returned. On 21-2-1990, the complainant sent a telegram to the accused calling upon her to make the payment of value of all these cheques viz., 2,13,000 within 15 days. On the same day, she also wrote a letter confirming the telegram. The accused did not pay the amount nor replied to the telegram or to the letter. The accused has committed offence punishable under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence the complaint
3. In C.C. No. 2490 of 1990, the respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner arraying her as the accused. The allegations in it are briefly as follows:
The complainant is a private limited company. The accused is proprietrix of M/s. Premier Agency, Ramnagar, Coimbatore. Her husband was Manager of the petitioner's branch at Coimbatore. In November 1988, large scale defalcation committed by Sethuraman was detected. On 23-8-1989, when Mrs. Asha Bagree went to Coimbatore, the accused and her husband came for a settlement and the accused issued 19 cheques for a total sum of Rs. 5,48,000 drawn on Syndicate Bank in favor of the complainant company. The cheques dated 25-11-1989, 25-12-1989 and 25-1-1989 for Rs.25,000 each were sent by the complainant along with three more cheques for collection. They were returned with endorsement "Refer to Drawer" on 16-2-1990. The complainant was informed that these cheques had been returned. On 21-2-1990 the complainant sent a telegram to the accused calling upon her to make the payment of value of all these cheques viz. Rs. 2,13,000 within 15 days. On the same day, she also wrote a letter confirming the telegram. The accused did not pay the amount nor replied to the telegram or the letter. The accused has committed offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence the complaint.
4. Mr. K.V. Venkatapathy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that as per section 138(b) a demand for payment of the amount due under the dishonoured cheques by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid is a sine quo non of the offence and in these cases no notice in writing was made and only a telegram followed by a letter are alleged to have been sent and that would not satisfy the requirement of section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel contended r that as per section 27 of the General Clauses Act, where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.