TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the question as to whether the notice is proper or not, should be decided depending upon the prejudice that is alleged by the accused in the case. In this case, though the notice was given, it refers to the particulars of the cheque to the understanding of the accused, even in the reply notice, no specific prejudice that was actually pleaded by the accused either by stating that he was confused, or by stating that the details of the Cheque are insufficient to enable him to effectively defend the case. In such circumstances, the contention of the Petitioner to quash the proceedings cannot be sustained and thus the Criminal Original Petition fails. - Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10515 of 2017, CRL.M.P(MD)Nos.7189 and 7190 of 2017 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of offences;- Not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973(2 of 1974),-- (a)no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b)such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause(c) of the proviso to section 138; (provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complaint satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period;) (c)no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man Constructions, represented by its Partner S.D.Ramasamy, Son of C.Deivasigamani, Dr.Arumugam Residence (Upstairs), R.S.Road,Perundurai Town, Erode District and two others), wherein, it has been held as follows: ''84........Unfortunately, he had filed the complaint in C.C.No.182 of 2006 on the file of the trial Court on 17.11.2006. In effect, there was a delay of two days in preferring a complaint. Only, when the main case arguments were heard and when it was posted for judgement at that time only Criminal M.P.No.1113 of 2006 in C.C.No.182 of 2006 was filed on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant before the trial Court praying for permission to that Court to condone the delay of two days in question. Very rightly, the trial Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been held to be a substantive provision and not a procedural one, the complaint being filed beyond the period of limitation, it cannot be entertained by allowing the respondent to file an application after it has been taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate.........''. 7.Unfortunately, in the above said case, this Court has relied upon the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of S.Salaskar .vs. Jayaprakash M.Shah and another reported in AIR-2008-SC-3086.The question before the Honourable Supreme Court was with regard to the retrospective application of amendment, which was introduced in the year 2002. After the insertion of proviso to Section 142(1)(b), the question before the Honourable Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke the cheque number, account number, name of the bank and date of the cheque and the reason for dis-honour of such cheque is a condition precedent, particularly when, in the body of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in the various clauses of the proviso, references are made to the 'cheque', which is clear from the emphasis given while I quoted the above section. But no hard and fast rule can be laid down, while answering the question, and whether the accused is prejudiced due to the absence of any such details mentioned above with respect to the cheque in question, Crl.A.No.255 of 2003:-18-: depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Giving account number, to which the dis-honoured cheque pertained, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
