SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

GUJARAT HIGH COURT
H.R. Shelat, J.
Arunbhai Nilkanthrai Nanavati - Petitioner
versus
Jayaben Prahladbhai through Her Power of Attorney & Anr. – Opponents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2767 of 1998
Decided on 12-7-1999
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N .D. Nanavatri & Mr. M.T. Kikani, Advocate.
For the Opponent No. 1: Mr. M.J. Dagli, Advocate.
For the Opponent No. 2: Ms. Katha Gajjar, A.P.P.

IMPORTANT POINT
Cheque is required to be presented at paying Bank i.e. drawee within period of six months of its validity period of validity initiation of criminal action under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruction Act.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Cheque to be presented - Within six months or during its validity period - Limitation whether applies to paying Bank or collecting Bank -Cheque dated 24-1-1997 presented by complaint to collecting Bank On 24-7-1997 - Cheque reached paying Bank i.e. drawee on 28-7-1997 and it was returned unpaid for reason that cheque was state and that account was stale and that account was closed – Complaint on that cheque – Sustainability – Presentment of cheque is to be made within 6 months or within period of its validity at paying Bank and not at collecting Bank – Presentment in this case was not in consonance with Section 138 of the Act and was late by 4 days, complaint could not be entertained – Proceeding were liable to be quashed.

       Result: Petition allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

H.R. Shelat, J. – The petitioner, against whom a Criminal Case No. 4061 of 1997 is filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) at Bhavnagar, relating to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable' Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), prays for setting aside the common order dated 15-6-1998 passed rejecting his applications, Ex. 6, 8 & 10, quashing of the complaint, and his discharge etc.

2. The question of vital importance that arises for consideration is to, which Bank (paying or collecting), the cheque is to be presented within 6 months or during its validity period for legally & validly initiation of criminal action under Sec. 138 of the Act?

3. The fact, necessary for disposal of this application, may, in brief, be stated. The petitioner and opponent No. 1, were having legal transactions. When account was settled, Rs. 1,00,000/- were found due to the opponent No. 1 from the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, in order to fulfill his obligation, to pay the amount, issued the cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- on 24th January, 1997. The cheque was drawn on the Branch of Veraval Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd., Veraval at Junagadh (for short, 'the paying Bank'). The opponent No. 1 presented the cheque on 24th July, 1997 at Bhavnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., at Bhavnagar (for short, 'the collecting Bank'). On the same day collecting Bank sent the cheque to the paying Bank, i.e., drawee at Junagadh. The cheque was received by the paying Bank on 28th July, 1997. The cheque was on the same day returned on the ground that the account was closed. On receipt of the intimation that the cheque was dishonoured the opponent No. 1 on 11th August, 1997, gave a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to make the payment. The payment, after the receipt of the notice, has not made. The opponent No. 1, therefore, on 10th September 1997 filed the complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhavnagar, which was later on assigned to the Judicial Magistrate (F. C.) at Bhavnagar for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. As the complaint was registered summons against the petitioner was issued. After being served with the summons the petitioner appeared before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) at Bhavnagar on 9th October 1997. Studying the allegation against him, he filed an application Ex. 6 on 7th October, 1997 requesting the Court to discharge him holding that the court was having no jurisdiction. On 24th December, 1997; another application Ex. 8 was also filed by the petitioner requesting the Court to dismiss the complaint and discharge him as the cheque was not presented within 6 months, the period of its validity. Lastly on 21st January, 1998, the petitioner presented the third application, Ex. 10 requesting the Court to discharge him under Section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, because the cheque was presented 'after the expiry of the period of 6, months. The learned Judicial Magistrate' at ' Bhavnagar heard all the three applications together and by a common order dated 15th June, 1998, rejected all the three applications, mainly on the ground that the question of want of jurisdiction and bar of limitation owing to validity period of 6 months could be decided after the evidence was recorded in the case. Against that order, the present application is filed for the aforesaid relief.

4. On several ground the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, is assailed but at the time of submission before me the learned Advocate representing the petitioner tapered off his submissions confining to the only point relating to the presentment of a cheque. According to him, the cheque-is required

to be presented at the paying Bank (drawee) and not the collecting Bank. In this case, the cheque dated 24th January 1997 ought to have been presented at the paying Bank. within the period of 6 months instead that the cheque was presented on 24th July, 1997 at the collecting Ba






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top