Judges : K.T.THOMAS,R.P.SETHI
Dalmia Cement Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Galaxy Trades And Agencies - Respondent
Case No : Crl.A. No. 957 of 2000
Decided On : 01/19/2001
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner:---For the Respondent:---
S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes dishonour of a cheque an offence. The complainant must present the cheque to the bank within six months from the date it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. The payee or holder of the cheque must make a demand for payment by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of receiving information from the bank about the cheque being returned unpaid. S.139 provides a presumption that the holder received the cheque for the discharge of a debt or liability. S.140 restricts the defence in a prosecution under S.138. S.141 deals with such offences committed by companies. S.142 specifies that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under S.138 except upon a written complaint made by the payee or holder of the cheque within one month of the cause of action arising.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondents for dishonour of a cheque. The High Court quashed the complaint on the ground that it was barred by time. The appellant had issued a statutory notice to the respondents regarding the dishonour of the cheque, but the respondents claimed to have received empty envelopes. The appellant presented the cheque again and issued a fresh notice. The respondents approached the High Court to quash the complaint. The Supreme Court held that the complaint was not barred by time and directed the trial court to proceed with the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, which makes dishonour of a cheque an offence. The court emphasized that the offence is complete upon the receipt of the notice by the drawer of the cheque, not upon the giving of the notice. The court also discussed the presumption of service of a notice sent by post under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The court held that if a notice is returned as unclaimed, it can be presumed to have been served. The court further held that the appellant had the option to issue a fresh notice after the respondents claimed to have received empty envelopes. The court rejected the respondents' contradictory plea and directed the trial court to proceed with the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The offence under Section 138 of the Act is complete upon the receipt of the notice by the drawer of the cheque. A notice sent by post can be presumed to have been served if it is returned as unclaimed. The complainant has the option to issue a fresh notice if the drawer claims not to have received the notice. The complaint is not barred by time in such cases.
Result: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the trial court to proceed with the complaint against the respondents.
1. The complaint filed under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called "the Act") was quashed by the High Court vide the judgment impugned in this appeal holding that the same was barred by time as the complainant had allegedly failed to file it within the statutory period from the date of accruing of the cause of action.
2. In order to appreciate the legal submissions, a resume of facts of the case is necessary. In its complaint, the appellant-company had stated that Accused Nos. 2 to 9 who are partners of respondent- firm purchased cement from it and issued cheque for Rs. 9,13,353.84 on 26th May, 1998 which was drawn on Karur Vysa Bank Ltd., Ernakulam Branch. When presented for collection, the cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds in the accounts of the accused. The information regarding non-payment of the cheque amount was communicated by the Bank to the complainant on 2.6.1998. The complainant on 13.6.1998, through its Advocate, issued a statutory notice in terms of S.138 of the Act intimating respondents 1 and 2 regarding the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon the respondents to pay the said amount within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the said notice. The postal acknowledgement receipt of the notice, served upon the respondents, was received by the complainant on 15.6.1998. However, the respondents 1 and 2, vide their letter dated 20th June 1998, which was received by the Advocates of the appellant on 30th June 1998, intimated that they had in effect received empty envelopes without any contents and requested the appellant to mail the contents. It is worth noticing that by the time the complainant received the intimation of the respondents, the statuary period of filing complaint was about to expire. Believing the averments of the respondents to be true, though not admitting but as an abundant caution the appellant presented the cheque again on 1.7.1998 to the drawee bank through their bankers. The cheque was again dishonoured by the drawee bank on 2.7.1998. A registered statutory notice was issued to the accused intimating the dishonour of the cheque and the payment was demanded. The accused received the said notice on 27.7.1998 but did not make the payment. According to the complainant, the accused on 6.7.1998 sent a registered cover to its Ernakulam Office which contained some waste newspaper bits. As despite dishonour of the cheque and receipt of notice, the cheque amount was not paid, the appellant filed the complaint on 9th September, 1998, admittedly, within the statutory period from the second notice. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam took the cognizance and issued process to the respondents. Instead of appearing before the Magistrate, the respondents filed a petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court praying for quashing the complaint on the ground that the same was barred by limitation which was disposed of vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.
3. The Act was enacted and S.138 thereof incorporated with a specified object of making a special provision by incorporating a strict liability so far as the cheque, a negotiable instrument, is concerned. The law relating to negotiable instrument is the law of commercial world legislated to facilitate the activities in trade and commerce making provision of giving sanctity to the instrument of credit which could be deemed to be convertible into money and easily passable from one person to another. In the absence of such instruments, including a cheque, the trade and commerce activities, in the present day would, are likely to be adversely affected as it is impracticable for the trading community to carry on with it the bulk of the currency in force. The negotiable instruments are in fact the instruments of credit being convertible on account of legality of being negotiated and are easily passable from one hand to another. To achieve the objectives o
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.