TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereafter refer to as the Act ), the allegations in it was briefly as follows : In respect of purchases made by the first accused from the complainant, there is an outstanding balance of ₹ 20,87,600 and interest thereon. Towards the said liability, the first accused issued three cheques dated December 21, 1991, December 18, 1991 and December 28, 1991, for ₹ 1 lakh, ₹ 1 lakh and ₹ 1,50,000 respectively, in favour of the complainant. Those cheques were signed by the second accused, as managing director of the first accused. The complainant presented the said cheques for encashment. All the three cheques were dishonoured on the ground not arranged for . The complainant received mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. I have heard Mr. T. R. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel, on the above aspects. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel and I shall now consider the submissions made by Mr. K. V. Sridharan in seriatim. Regarding the first submission that no list of witnesses, as enjoined by section 204, Criminal Procedure Code, is given in the complaint and hence it is liable to be quashed, I have to extract section 204(2), Criminal Procedure Code, which reads as follows : 204. Issue of process.... (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. 6. In Crl. O. P. No. 8136 of 1990, dated December 14, 1993, Justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion that the three cheques were post-dated cheques, the allegations in the complaint do not disclose that they were post-dated cheques. Even assuming that they were post-dated cheques that does not matter at all. Only the dates which the cheque bears are the relevant dates, viz., December 21, 1991, December 18, 1991 and December 28, 1991. These cheques were presented within six months thereof. As such, there is no infirmity. In Anil Kumar Sawhney v. Gulshan Rai MANU/SC/0578/1993MANU/SC/0578/1993 : (1993)4SCC424 , the apex court had held that only the dates which the cheques bear are the relevant dates, as only on those dates they would assume the character of cheque . The apex court had clearly laid down the law as follows (at page 157) : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
