Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 2244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Suresh Kumar Rad - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Jakhar - Respondent
Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 264 of 2017
Decided On : 08-02-2018
Ms. Shalini Sheoran, for the the Appellant; Mr. Deepak Soni with Mr. Rahul Soni, for the Respondent
The court upheld the trial judge's finding on the date of the cheque return, emphasizing the importance of proving the date for the commencement of limitation for notice and complaint issuance.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque Dishonor - The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal as the trial judge's finding on the date of the cheque return was considered reasonable and not perverse.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that a cheque issued by the accused was returned due to insufficient funds. The trial judge found that the date of the cheque return was not proven beyond doubt by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial judge's view on the date of the cheque return was reasonable and not perverse, leading to the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal.
Issues: Date of cheque return and commencement of limitation for notice and complaint issuance.
Ratio Decidendi: The cutting of the month in the Return Memo could not rule out intentional manipulation to bring the notice and complaint issuance within the limitation period.
Final Decision: The application for leave to appeal was dismissed for being devoid of merits.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - The present application for leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant. The complainant had instituted a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as 'NI Act') to prosecute the accused respondent.
2. It is case of the complainant that Cheque No. 243799 dated 11.4.2008 issued by the complainant when presented was returned by the bank due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused respondent. As per the complainant, cheque was returned on 23.8.2008 and the notice by the counsel for the complainant was issued on 17.9.2008.
3. The trial Judge took into consideration Return Memo Exhibit-P/2 to return a finding that so far month of the return of the cheque is concerned, there is over cutting in the memo Exhibit-P/2. Thus, from on which date, cheque was returned by the bank has not been proved by the complainant beyond any shadow of doubt. It may be noted that the date and month noted on the Return Memo is a point for commencement of limitation for issuance of notice and filing of the complaint. No Bank official has been examined. Only complainant appeared as P.W.1. Cutting of the month in the Return Memo, cannot rule out that same was intentionally done to bring issuance of notice and filing of complaint within the period of limitation.
4. Counsel for the applicant has not denied that in the Return Memo Exhibit-P/2, there was cutting qua the month.
5. From the appreciation of evidence, the trial Judge formulated one view, which is possible on the facts and circumstances of the case and same cannot be termed perverse. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present application for leave to appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
