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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 1715

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM
K.J. Prakash
Versus
M/s. Royal Stitches (P) Ltd., Represented by its. Power of Attorney Agent Chennai
Crl.O.P. No. 32768 of 2007 and M.P. No. 1 of 2007
Decided On : 13-04-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M. Shreedhar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Karthik Mukundan, Advocate.

Failure to issue statutory notice to a partner of the accused firm under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act renders prosecution unfair and unjust.

Headnote:

Statutory Notice - Negotiable Instruments Act - Failure to issue statutory notice to partner of accused firm under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act renders prosecution unfair and unjust

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, one of the accused, sought to quash proceedings for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as no statutory notice was issued to him, a partner of the accused firm.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as no statutory notice was issued to him, providing an opportunity to effect payment and avoid prosecution.

Issues: Failure to issue statutory notice to partner of accused firm under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Ratio Decidendi: The offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act would be committed only upon failure to effect payment within 15 days from the receipt of a statutory notice, and denying this opportunity renders prosecution unfair and unjust.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the proceedings in C.C. No. 13171 of 2007 were quashed for the petitioner. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Judgment :-

1. This petition seeks to quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 13171 of 2007 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. In such case, the petitioner who is one of the three accused facing prosecution for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The first accused is a partnership firm, in which, the second and third accused are the partners. The respondent/complainant had presented the cheque issued by the first accused firm and upon the return thereof dishonoured, had issued statutory notice as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, to the first accused firm and subsequently filed the complaint.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent.

3. A perusal of the complaint shows that no statutory notice has been issued to this petitioner, who is the partner of the first accused firm. The petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, when no statutory notice was issued to him. The offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, would be committed only upon failure to effect the payment within 15 days from the receipt of a statutory notice. Thus an opportunity is reserved to a person to effect payment within the stipulated period and avoid prosecution. When such opportunity has been denied, then it would be unfair and unjust to prosecute such person.

4. The petition shall stand allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 13171 of 2007 shall stand quashed so far as this petitioner is concerned. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top