1993 Supreme(P&H) 861
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Chahal, J.
K.D.Sales Corpn.
Versus
Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6316 of 1993,
Decided On : OCTOBER 7, 1993
The cause of action for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act arises only after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice demanding payment, and the complaint must be filed within one month of the expiry of the 15 days period.
Headnote:
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT - DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE - LIMITATION - CAUSE OF ACTION - NOTICE - SECTION 138, 142 - COMPLAINT FILED MORE THAN ONE MONTH AFTER EXPIRY OF FIFTEEN DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE - BARRED BY LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner issued a cheque to the respondent for Rs.20,000/-, which was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds. The respondent issued a notice to the petitioner demanding payment within 15 days, but the petitioner failed to make the payment. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act more than one month after the expiry of 15 days from the date of the notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cause of action for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act arises only after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice demanding payment. Since the complaint was filed more than one month after the expiry of 15 days from the date of the notice, it was barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and held that the cause of action for the offence under Section 138 arises only after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice demanding payment. The court also held that the complaint must be filed within one month of the expiry of the 15 days period.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the complaint, and all consequent proceedings.
G. S. Chahal, J.
1. M/s. K. D. Sales Corporation-petitioner through its proprietor Shri Ashwani Kumar has come to this Court under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. for quashing of the complaint dated 31.1.1992, Annexure P-7 filed by the respondent against the petitioner for offence under sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short the Act) and the summoning order Annexure P6.
2. The brief facts on the basis of which the complaint Annexure P7 was instituted may be enumerated; The petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.58,041.15 to the respondent. On 13th August, 1991 a cheque bearing No.187388 drawn on the State Bank of India, Jalandhar, for a sum of Rs.20,000/1- was issued in his favour. This cheque when presented for payment was returned with the remarks Exceeds arrangements not arranged for. Second time the cheque was presented but again returned with the remarks that the amount had not been deposited. A registered notice dated 6th January, 1992 was issued, but in spite of that notice no payment was made. On 10th October, 1991 notice Annexure P2 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent through his counsel Shri Karnail Singh Mander giving information about the dishonouring of the cheque and further making demand that the amount be paid within fifteen days. It appears that after the second dishonour of the cheque another notice Annexure P4 was issued on 6th January, 1992 and the amount having not been paid the present complaint was filed.
3. Shri R. S. Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that once notice Annexure P2 had been issued and the payment had not been made within the stipulated period of fifteen days, the cause of action had arisen to the respondent and if he wanted to take advantage of the provisions of sec. 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the respondent had to institute the complaint within one month of the expiry of fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice Annexure P.2.
4. To appreciate the argument put forth by the learned counsel, the following provisions of Act may be extracted:
138. Dishonhour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in the account: Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person-from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either be cause of the amount of money standing to the credit of the 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) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in the course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, 1_debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
142. Cognizance of offences. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974 ).- (a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sec. 138 except upon a