Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
Sukhpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jit Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction recorded by the trial Court in a cheque bounce case, which has been affirmed by the appellate Court.
2. Criminal Complaint No.256 of 2014 was filed by complainant- Jit Singh (respondent herein) with the allegation that an amount of Rs. 4 lakh was borrowed by the accused-Sukhpal Singh (petitioner herein) from him in November 2013 for a period of four months. For discharging his liability, accused issued a cheque No.032506 dated 20.02.2014 for an amount of Rs. 4 lakh drawn on Union Bank of India, Branch Dhuri favouring the complainant. On presentation of the cheque by the complainant to his banker i.e., Punjab National Bank, the cheque was returned unpaid with the remarks 'not arranged for and refer to drawer' vide memo dated 05.03.2014. Demand notice dated 19.03.2014 was issued by the complainant asking the accused to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days. Despite receipt of the notice, accused failed to make the payment and hence the complaint was filed on 28.04.2014 before ld. JMIC, Patiala. However, in view of the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra
Failure to respond to a legal notice implies merit in the complainant's case, and limitation issues can be waived if not raised timely.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and the provision for condoning the delay in filing the complaint under Section 142.
The court confirms that service of demand notice to a company suffices for its directors regarding dishonoured cheques, establishing limitations under the Negotiable Instruments Act strictly apply.
The court confirmed that a dishonoured cheque can lead to criminal liability under Section 138, provided all statutory requirements, including timely filing of the complaint, are met.
Point of Law : The provisions of Limitation Act are made inapplicable for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not maintainable if filed before the statutory fifteen-day notice period has expired, rendering any cognizance taken by the court invalid.
Point of Law : Learned Court below committed no error or mistake while holding that there was no satisfactory explanation in condoning the delay of 350 days in lodging complaint.
The court affirmed that complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act were filed within the limitation period, allowing for a second legal notice to rectify technical defects without prejudice to the ac....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
