SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(HP) 121

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
M.R.VERMA
NARINDER KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
HARNAM SINGH - Respondent
CrA.No. 11 of 1996
Decided On : 06/25/1999

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. N.D.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent:Mr. Duiesh Sharaia, Advocate.

The period of limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act begins to run from the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice by the accused.

Headnote:

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - SECTION 138 - COMPLAINT - LIMITATION - FILING OF COMPLAINT WITHIN ONE MONTH OF ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant lent Rs. 30,000/- to the accused and in lieu thereof, the accused issued a cheque in favor of the complainant. The cheque was returned with the endorsement "refer to drawer" and the complainant issued a notice to the accused demanding payment within 15 days. The accused failed to make the payment and the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appellate court acquitted him on the grounds that the complaint was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the complaint was filed within the prescribed period of limitation and that the accused had failed to establish any subsisting debt or other liability which he was legally bound to discharge.

Issues: Whether the complaint was filed within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the period of limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act begins to run from the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice by the accused. In the instant case, the legal notice was received by the accused on 22.1.1990 and the complaint was filed on 21.2.1990, which was within the prescribed period of one month.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT

M.R.Verma, J.: feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.4.1995 passed by the learned Sessions-Judge, Solan whereby the judgment dated 29.4.1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan where by the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 10.000/-, in default of payment of fine, the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and a sum of Rs. 5000/- out of the amount of fine, if deposited, was to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation, had been set aside the accused has been acquitted, the appellant-complainant (here in after to be referred to as the complainant) has preferred the present appeal.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant and the accused are agriculturists and also are carrying on the business as forest lessees. The accused allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,009/- from the complainant and in lieu thereof, the accused issued cheque dated 20.11.1989 Ex. PW-I/A in favour of the complainant. When the cheque was presented to the bankers, it was returned with the endorsement "refer to drawer" meaning thereby that it could not be encashed. The complainant, therefore, issued a notice dated 16.1.1990, a copy whereof is Ex. PW-l/C to the accused which was received by the accused vide AD Ex. PW-l/E on January 22, 1990. As per the notice, the accused was called upon to make the payment of the amount of the cheque within 15 days from the receipt of the notice, but he failed to do so. The complainant again presented the cheque in dispute to the bankers in the month of .February, 1990 when it was again returned with the endorsement refer to drawer. The complainant, in the meanwhile, filed a complaint under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). On the said complaint, accused came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, who convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan who vide the impugned, judgment, set aside the conviction and sentence.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the grounds (1) that the version of the complainant that he lent Rs. 30,000/- to the accused and for repaying the same, the accused issued the disputed cheque Ex.PW-1/A, neither seems to be true nor inspires confidence and (2) that the complaint was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

6. To appreciate the first ground, a reference may be made to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the material part whereof reads as follows :

"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency- etc of funds in the account :- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with the banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless - (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Explanation :- For the purposes of this Section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability." A plai










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top