Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
Juli Bhansali W/o Shree Premchand Bhansali – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Singhi S/o Shree T.C. Singhi – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court clarified that when calculating the notice period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the date of receipt of the dishonor memo is excluded from the computation (!) .
The court emphasized that the day on which the event or act occurs from which the period runs should not be counted against the complainant, following established legal principles (!) (!) .
The period of limitation for sending the legal notice begins from the day after the receipt of the dishonor memo, and Sundays or public holidays are to be excluded when counting the days (!) (!) .
The date of receipt of the dishonor memo was established as 09.09.2022, and this date is excluded from the calculation of the 30-day notice period (!) .
The notice was issued on 10.10.2022, which falls within the permissible period when excluding the receipt date and holidays, making the notice valid (!) .
The trial court's conclusion that the notice was beyond the statutory period was found to be erroneous and contrary to law, leading to the appeal being allowed (!) .
The case was remitted back to the trial court for a decision on merits, with parties instructed to appear before the court on 25.04.2025 (!) .
The court referred to the relevant provisions of the law regarding the calculation of time, including Sections 105 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the General Clauses Act, to support the interpretation that the period should exclude the day on which the cause of action or event occurred, as well as holidays (!) (!) .
The legal interpretation aligns with the principle that the first day in a period is excluded when counting days from a specific date, ensuring the notice was timely (!) (!) .
Overall, the court held that the statutory requirements for the notice period were satisfied, and the complaint should not have been dismissed on the grounds of limitation (!) .
These points collectively establish that the notice under Section 138 was issued within the prescribed period when proper exclusions are applied, and the dismissal of the complaint on limitation grounds was incorrect.
Order :
(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.)
1. The appellant/complainant has filed present acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daundilohara, District Balod (C.G.) by which learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ( in short “the N.I. Act, 1881”).
2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the appellant/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daundilohara, District Balod (C.G.)alleging that the complainant had given Rs. 6,00,000/- to the accused on 28.11.2017 after execution of written promissory note mentioning that he will return the amount by 25.02.2018 and also promised to pay interest on the said loan amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- at the rate of 1.50 percent per month. In compliance of the promissory note, the accused has paid the interest till 09.03.2020 and after that interest amount was not paid. When the complainant demanded amount, the respondent has given a cheque of Rs. 6,00,000/- maint
The court established that the date of receipt of the dishonor memo is excluded in calculating the notice period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The court established that in computing time limits under Section 138 of the NI Act, the first day is excluded and the last day is included.
The court ruled that, for calculating the 30-day notice period under S.138, the day of receipt of information about the cheque return is excluded.
The correct computation of the statutory period for filing a complaint in cases of dishonoured cheques is essential for the court's decision.
The notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act must be issued within 30 days of receiving information about the dishonor of the cheque; failure to comply renders the complaint non-maintainable.
The court confirmed that a dishonoured cheque can lead to criminal liability under Section 138, provided all statutory requirements, including timely filing of the complaint, are met.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
