Krishnappa Chetty V. Carpen Chetty

Present: Lascelles C.J. and Wood Renton J.

KRISHNAPPA CHETTY v. CARPEN CHETTY.

93-D. C. Kandy, 21,155.

Post-dated cheque-Not invalid-Stamp Ordinance, No. 22 of 1909, s. 64.

A cheque is not invalid by reason of its being post-dated.

An endorsee of a cheque, who knew at the time of the endorsement that the cheque was post-dated, may nevertheless maintain an action on the note.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kandy (F. B. Dias, Esq.). The facts are set out in the judgment.

H. A. Jayewardene (with him Balasingham), for the defendant-appellant.-A cheque is a bill" of exchange (see section 73 of the Bills of Exchange Act). The law imposes a penalty on any one who issues a post-dated cheque (see section 64 of " The Stamp Ordinance, 1909 "). Where the law imposes a penalty the act is illegal. See Peris v. Fernando, 1 Melliss v. The Shirley Local Board, 2 Wells v. Higgins,3 Annamalai v. Perera,4 and Gye v. Fallout.5 The cheque in this case is post-dated and therefore illegal. It cannot be sued upon. The plaintiff knew when he took the cheque that it was a post-dated cheque.

Under the Stamp Ordinance of 1861 it was held t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document