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

2019 Supreme(SC) 595

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Birendra Prasad Sah - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & Anr. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 000868 OF 2019 (@ SLP(Crl) No(s). 10811 of 2018)
Decided On : 08-05-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv., Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR, Mr. Aakash, Adv., Ms. Priya Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Keshav Mohan, Adv., Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar - I, AOR, Mr. Jay Saula, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheques – Issuance of successive notices is permissible under provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 142 – Dishonour of cheques – Complaint – Limitation – Issuance of successive notices is permissible under provisions of Section 138 having regard to object of legislation – Under Section 142(1), complaint has to be instituted within one month of date on which cause of action has arisen under clause (c) of proviso to Section 138 – However, cognizance of complaint may be taken by court after prescribed period if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period – Appellant had indicated sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay in institution of complaint – High Court has merely adverted to presumption that first notice would be deemed to have been served if it was dispatched in ordinary course – Even if that presumption applies, sufficient cause was shown by appellant for condoning delay in instituting complaint taking basis of complaint as issuance of first legal notice – Impugned judgment of High Court is unsustainable – Order passed by Single Judge set aside and complaint restored to file of trial court. (Para 7, 11 and 12)

       Facts of Case:

       Dishonour of cheques. Chief Judicial Magistrate condoned delay in filing complaint. While taking cognizance, CJM issued summons to second respondent. Second respondent instituted revisional proceedings before Sessions Judge which were rejected. In further recourse to High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Single Judge held that complaint under Section 138 was not filed within statutory period of thirty days prescribed under Section 138 as a result of which proceedings were quashed.

       Findings of Court:

       Under Section 142(1), complaint has to be instituted within one month of the date on which cause of action has arisen under clause (c) of proviso to Section 1386. Proviso however stipulates that cognizance of complaint may be taken by court after prescribed period, if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 10 May 2018 by which an order taking cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888, [“Act”] has been quashed.

4. The facts, briefly stated, are thus:

5. The dispute arises over two cheques drawn on the State Bank of India in the amount of Rs 36,00,000 and Rs 13,00,000 which were returned unpaid under a memo issued by the UCO Bank, Begusarai on 20 November 2015. The appellant received the memo on 4 December 2015. Following this, a legal notice was issued on 31 December 2015 intimating the dishonour of the cheque. According to the appellant, between 14 February 2016 and 23 February 2016, he made queries with the postal department but no proof of service was provided. Accordingly, on 26 February 2016, a second legal notice was issued. This was replied to by the second respondent on 2 March 2016. Eventually, a complaint under Section 138 was instituted on 11 May 2016.

6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai by an order dated 14 July 2016, condoned the delay in filing the complaint. While taking cognizance, the CJM issued summons to the second respondent. The second respondent instituted revisional proceedings before the Sessions Judge which were rejected on 8 March 2017. In a further recourse to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, the learned Single Judge held that the complaint under Section 138 was not filed within the statutory period of thirty days prescribed under Section 138 as a result of which the proceedings were quashed.

7. Assailing the judgment of the High Court, Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan, (2013) 1 SCC 177 a three judge Bench of this Court has taken the view that the issuance of successive notices is permissible under the provisions of Section 138 having regard to the object of the legislation. Moreover, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the delay in the institution of the complaint was condoned by the CJM under Section 142. Hence, there was an error on the part of the High Court in quashing the proceedings.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Jay Savla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent submitted that:

(i) The second legal notice dated 26 February 2016 was sent beyond a period of thirty days of the receipt of the memo of dishonour on 4 December 2015 and hence cannot be the basis of a valid institution of a criminal complaint;

(ii) If at all, the complaint could have only been instituted on the basis of the first legal notice dated 31 December 2015 which was within thirty days of the receipt of the memo of dishonour;

(iii) The complaint which was lodged on 11 May 2016 was beyond the stipulated period from the date of issuance of the first notice;

(iv) The CJM had condoned the delay which had occurred in the institution of the complaint only for the period after 6 April 2016 after the issuance of the second notice; and

(v) In the decision of the three judge Bench in MSR Leathers (supra), there was a re-presentation of the cheque as a result of which, a fresh notice was held to be within the ambit of the law.

9. Section 138 provides thus:

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 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, 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












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