PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S. Chahal. J.
M/s. Chahal Engg. & Construction
Ltd. & Anr. - Petitioners
versus
Mis. Verma Plywood Co. - Respondent
Cri. Misc. No. 374-M of 1992
Decided on 16.9.1993
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioners - R.S. Randhawa & R.S. Bajaj.
For the Respondent - S.S. Toor.
Result: Petition allowed.
G.S. Chahal, J. - The petitioners seek quashing of the complaint dt. August 29, 1991 filed by the respondent against him for offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act), the summoning order issued by the Court and all consequent proceedings.
2. The prosecution was launched by the respondent on the ground that the respondent had supplied to the petitioner shuttering plywood valued at Rs. 2,28,300/- during the period August 3, 1989 to October 3, 1989 vide various bills. The petitioner paid Rs. 20,000/- by way of a cheque dated November 17, 1989, but withheld the balance amount. Ultimately on issuing two cheques in favour of the respondent and on presentation, one of the cheques was honoured on June IS, 1991, but the second cheque amounting to Rs. 98,0601- was dishonoured with the remarks "Refer to Drawer". On receipt of intimation of this memo of dishonour, the respondent issued a notice and the notice sent at the Delhi address was duly delivered while the other was received back as unclaimed. This dishonoured cheque was again presented for encashment on July 31, ]991, but having been again dishonoured, a notice dated August 5, 1991 was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 98,0501- within fifteen days from the receipt of this notice. Since the petitioner did not make the payment, he was liable for offence u/s. 138 of the Act.
3. The petitioner has challenged the prosecution on the basis that the same was time-barred as it was not presented within one month of the accruing of cause of action. To appreciate the argument put forth the following provisions of law may be extracted
"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc. of funds in the account : Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person-from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account as insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall to deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless - .
the cheque has 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 payee or the holder in due course, of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the 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.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this Section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability 139. to 141. xxx xxx
142. Cognizance of offences.-Notwithstanding anything contained on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 to 1974) :
no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 139 except upon a complaint in writing made by the pay~ or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;
such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso of Section 138;
no court ii1ferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class, shall, try any fence punish able under Section 138."
A bare readin
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.