Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2948

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Jagdish – Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 1995
Decided On : 13-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, for the Appellant; Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP, Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of proceedings under Section 138 solely on the ground of being beyond the prescribed time limit was erroneous, and the appellant was well within time to proceed with the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Headnote:
Section 138 Proviso (b) & (c) - Negotiable Instruments Act - The court found that the appellant was well within time to sustain the right to proceed with the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the rejection of the proceedings on the ground of being beyond the prescribed time limit was erroneous.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant submitted that the cheque in question was dishonored by the bank on a specific date and the notice for dishonor was given within the prescribed time limit. The trial court had rejected the proceedings under Section 138 solely on the ground of being beyond the prescribed time limit.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court erred in rejecting the proceedings under Section 138 solely on the ground of being beyond the prescribed time limit. It quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh adjudication, considering the suit to have been preferred in time.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the proceedings under Section 138 solely on the ground of being beyond the prescribed time limit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 138 Proviso (b) & (c) and Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allowed the appellant to sustain the right to proceed with the proceedings under Section 138 within the prescribed time limit.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for fresh adjudication, considering the suit to have been preferred in time. The present appeal was disposed of accordingly.

ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the cheque in question was intimated to have been dishonored by the bank on 20.06.1991. Learned counsel further submits that the notice for dishonor of cheque was given within fifteen days on 02.07.1991.

2. Learned counsel also submits that after fifteen days, the cause of action arose and within 30 days, the suit had to be preferred and which was preferred on 02.08.1991.

3. Learned counsel relies upon Section 138 Proviso (b) & (c) as well as Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. This Court finds that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the proceedings under Section 138 only on the ground that the same was beyond the prescribed time limit.

5. It is clear that the intimation was received by the appellant on 20.6.1991 and the notice was given within fifteen days i.e on 02.07.1991. The notice was received unserved and again re-sent on 13.07.1991 and received with acknowledgment. The appellant was well within time to sustain his right to proceed with the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.09.1995 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to make fresh adjudication, while considering the suit to have been preferred in time, strictly in accordance with law.

7. The present appeal stands disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document