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

2007 (2) Bankmann 107
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vinod Prasad, J.
Deepak Kumar and Anr. —Applicants
versus
State of U.P. and Anr. —Opposite Parties
Criminal Misc. Application
No. 7056 of 2005
Decided on 6-9-2006

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicants:Mr. Manu Yadav and Mr. I.M. Khan. Advocates.
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Nitin Gupta. Advocate and A.G.A.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 does not take into its purview service by private courier.

Headnote:(i) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Service of Demand Notice, date of—Date of service of notice not mentioned by complainant —In the absence of date of service of notice demanding payment of cheque amount, no offence is made against applicants/accused—It cannot be said that any such notice was ever served on applicants—Consequently 15 days period for making payment of cheque money cannot be counted—Unless that is done, no offence is made out —Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482. (Para 7)

       (ii) General Clauses Act, 1897—Section 27—Presumption of service—This section deals only with service by ‘post’ and that too ‘registered service’ when such service is contemplated by Act itself—No other mode of service is embraced in Section 27Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138. (Para 7)

       (iii) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Offence under—Essential ingredients—Discussed. (Para 6)

       Facts of the Case:

        (A) Applicants issued cheque dated 10.7.2004 for Rs. 1,00,000 as guarantee for repayment of a friendly loan taken from respondent No. 2/complainant. The said cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The complainant gave a legal notice on 26.7.2004 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It was sent through courier service DTDC.

        (B) Inspite of service of notice, applicants did not pay amount of cheque. Therefore, complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Trial Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused applicants vide order dated 16.9.2004.

        (C) Hence this application.

       Finding of the Court:

        Neither in complaint, nor in statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. nor in counter affidavit any date of service of notice demanding payment of cheque money from applicants is mentioned. In absence of date of service of notice, no offence is made against applicants. Contention of respondent-complainant that service is to be presumed cannot be accepted because Section 27 of General Clauses Act does not take into purview, service by private courier.

       Result: Application allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Vinod Prasad, J. —A couple, Deepak Kumar and Smt. Nirmala, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and have preferred this criminal Misc. Application No. 7056 of 2005, with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.9.2004, by which the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad has summoned them for committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in Complaint Case No. 7136 of 2004, Rajbir Singh v. Deepak Kumar & Others. The ancillary prayer is for stay of the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case pendente lite.

2. The encapsulated facts of the case, as is perceptible from the complaint (Annexure No. 4), filed by complainant Rajbir Singh, respondent No. 2 are that the complainant is an employee of Air Force and Kishan Lal, father of the applicant No.1 Deepak Kumar, was his neighbour and was serving as a civil defence personnel. Applicant No. 2 Smt. Nirmala is the wife of Deepak Kumar. Being neighbour and persons connected with defence a close friendship and intimacy developed between the applicants and the complainant. As a result of the said intimacy between the two, applicants took a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 from the complainant Rajbir Singh, respondent No. 2 on 12.4.2004 with a promise to repay it within six months. A receipt-cum-agreement Annexure No. 1, was executed on a stamp paper to this effect on 12.4.2004 itself. A cheque, dated 10.7.2004, being cheque No. 087411 from Account No. 116, of Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 19, NOIDA was also issued by the applicants as a guarantee on the said loan, on the condition that if the loan amount was not paid within the stipulated period of time then the complainant was free to realize the loan amount by presenting the said cheque in the Bank for encashment. As the applicants failed to repay the loan amount within the stipulated period the complainant, left with no other option to realize his money, deposited the said cheque for encashment on 13.7.2004 in his Syndicate Bank, Air Force Station, Hindon, Ghaziabad Branch. Syndicate Bank returned the said cheque, bounced and dishonoured to the complainant, along with a memo dated 15.7.2004, which were received by him on 16.7.2004. The memo indicated that the cheque had bounced because of ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant, thereafter, made several requests to the applicant accused for payment of his loan amount but it was all in vain. Consequently, the complainant gave a legal notice on 26.7.2004 under Section 138 of N.I. Act (Annexure No. 2) to the applicant accused through his Counsel Mr. Jai Singh Bhadoria, Advocate. It was sent through courier service DTDC vide Annexure No. 3. In spite of service of notice, since, the applicants did not pay the demanded amount of cheque, the complainant, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad on 30.8.2004 being complaint case number 7136 of 2004 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant accused. Along with the complaint he filed photocopies of the agreement, original copy of the cheque issued by applicants, copy of notice and four courier receipts. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence, recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. on 13.8.2004, (Annexure No. 5) and, thereafter, vide order dated 16.9.2004, summoned the accused applicants for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act vide Annexure No. 6. Aggrieved by their summoning order the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the accused applicants with the prayer to quash the same. Complainant respondent No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit in this application.

3. I have heard Mr. Manu Yadav, Advocate, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Nitin Gupta, learned Counsel for the complainant respondent No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. in opposition at a great length and have gone


























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