TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to make payment within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. Thus, the offence under Section 138 of the Act would be completed only with the concatenation of all the above components - In the present case, the complaint was maintainable as it was filed satisfying all the above ingredients as laid down in Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act. It is evident that the registered notice was given on 13.10.2006 through his counsel Sri Satish Chandra Kohil, Advocate, through registered post A.D. calling upon the applicant to make payment of the disputed cheques total amounting to ₹ 1,85,000/- to the complainant within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. The applicant even after the service of notice did not pay the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. - Application U/S 482 No. - 7032 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2014 - Naheed Ara Moonis, J. Counsel for Applicant:- Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party:- Govt. Advocate,M.L. Maurya,S.N. Verma,S.R. Verma JUDGMENT Naheed Ara Moonis, Case called out in the revised list. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party to argue the case. This Court on 4.7.2014, has passed the following order : Case called out in the revised list. Neither learned counsel for the applicant nor learned counsel for the complainant are present to argue this case. Learned Additional Advocate appearing on behalf of the State is present. On 22.4.2014, the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pectus is that opposite party no. 2 had filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of this Act stating therein that the applicant had taken financial assistance from the complainant and to repay the liability, the applicant had paid three cheques bearing no. 157755 dated 24.8.2006 amounting to ₹ 60,000/-, cheque bearing no. 157756 dated 30.8.2006 amounting to ₹ 60,000/- and cheque no. 157757 dated 4.9.2006 amounting to ₹ 65,000/-. Cheques were duly issued under signature of the accused-appellant and were drawn on Bank of India, Transport Nagar, Kanpur in favour of the complainant. When the cheques were presented, for encashment the same were returned back from the Bank with the endorsement 'Insufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... joinder affidavit has been filed. Therefore, this court is constrained to pass the order deciding the case on merits after hearing the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State. Learned AGA has contended that summoning order has been passed on the basis of the nature of allegations made against the applicants as the cheques which were issued by the applicant were dishonored by the Bank on account of insufficiency of fund in her account. Therefore, a prima facie offence under Section 138 N.I. Act has been made out against the applicants and after the expiry of the period of statutory notice as provided under Section 138 N.I. Act, the complainant had filed the complaint against the applicant. Hence there is no illegality or perversity i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... que, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. 142. Cognizance of offence:- Notwithstanding 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered notice was given through counsel on 13.10.2006 and was received by the applicant on 14.10.2006 which is evident from the reply made in para-7 of the counter affidavit and the certificate of the Postal Department annexed as C.A.-1. The complaint was filed on 22.11.2006. The photocopy of the complaint which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit wherein the endorsement of the munsarim is that the case was registered on 21.11.2006 the affidavit in support of the complaint was filed before the Court on 21.11.2006. Thus, there is no violation of any statutory provision of Section 138 N.I. Act. Nor there is any violation of the provisions of the Section 142 N.I. Act. Thus it is an admitted fact that the cheque was given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
