IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
M/s. N. A. Organic Works & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
S. Dasgupta & Associates – Opp. Parties
CRR 523 of 2020
Decided On : 24-08-2023
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 - SECTION 138 - LIMITATION - Computation - Period of one month for filing complaint - Excluding the day of receipt of notice and including the last day - Cheques issued as security - Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 - Professional fees due - Cheque issued towards liability of professional fees.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, a partnership firm, were convicted and sentenced for dishonor of cheques issued to the complainant, a Chartered Accountant, for professional services rendered. The petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence on grounds of limitation, absence of liability, and the cheques being issued as security.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint was not barred by limitation as the period of one month for filing the complaint was calculated correctly, excluding the day of receipt of the notice and including the last day. The court also held that the petitioners failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the cheques were issued towards the liability of professional fees.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the petitioners were liable to pay the amount of the cheques? 3. Whether the cheques were issued as security?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The period of one month for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is calculated by excluding the day of receipt of the notice and including the last day. 2. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, that a cheque is issued for the discharge of a debt or other liability can be rebutted by the drawer by proving that the cheque was issued for a different purpose. 3. A cheque issued towards the liability of professional fees is not a security cheque.
Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to appear before the trial court to comply with the sentence.
JUDGMENT :
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) :
1. The present revision has been preferred against an Order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-2, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan at Kolkata in Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2018, arising out of Complaint case no.26691 of 2011 under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended thereunder thereby dismissing the said Criminal Appeal on contest and affirming the Order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court at Calcutta in connection with Complaint Case No.26691 of 2014 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2018 passed in complaint case no.26691 of 2011 under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court at Calcutta.
2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm having its office at P-27, Princep Street, Police Station-Hare Street, Kolkata- 700 072, duly represented by its partners namely Mr. Niaz Ahjmed and Mrs. Indrani Chakraborty, being the petitioner no.2 and 3 herein.
3. The petitioners were placed on trial in complaint case no.26691 of 2011 under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4. By the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court at Calcutta in complaint case no.26691 of 2011 under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended thereunder the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within one month in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.01.2018, the petitioners preferred an appeal, before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan at Kolkata being Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2018.
6. Vide order dated 17.12.2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-2, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan at Kolkata was pleased to dismiss the said Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2018 on contest.
7. Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial court while passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 failed to consider that no liability arose in order to attract the impugned proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. It is further submitted that the learned trial court while passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 failed to consider that the complainant committed gross neglect in discharging its professional duties as a Chartered Accountant and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 failed to consider that the cheques were issued as a security and not towards the discharge of legal debts and liabilities and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
10. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 has incorrectly held that the issue of limitation cannot be considered in the appeal stage as it was not raised during trial and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 failed to consider that the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was barred by Limitation Act and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
12. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 failed to consider the definition of 'Month' in the General Clauses Act and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
13. The judgment is otherwise bad in law and liable to be quashed and/or set aside.
14. A written notes of argument has been fi
Sadanandan Bhadran vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar
Sil Import, USA vs Exim Aids Silk Exporters, Bangalore
Suman Sethi vs Ajay K. Churiwal and Anr.
Uniplas India Ltd. and Ors. vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jayprakash M. Shah and Anr.
M/s. Saketh India Ltd. vs M/s. India Securities Ltd.
MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177
The period of one month for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is calculated by excluding the day of receipt of the notice and including the last day.
The cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot arise before expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice upon the accused.
A cheque issued for a time-barred debt does not constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to no offence being committed.
Admission of cheque issuance triggers presumption of debt under NI Act; security cheque liable for existing liability; unlicensed moneylender's NI complaint maintainable; revisional court defers to c....
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises. The court does not have jurisdiction to take cogni....
The denial of liability and refusal to pay the cheque amounts by the accused constituted a valid cause of action for filing the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, despite being filed before t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the statutory provisions in Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the period of limitation for fil....
Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act not interferable unless perverse; prior cheque loss notification rebuts presumption; complaint premature before 15 days from 30-day deemed notice ser....
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.