9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at Patna dated 10 May 2018 by which an order taking cognizance of an offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 (sic 1881) 1 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, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hirty 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. 10. In the present case, the facts narrated above indicate that the Appellant issued a legal notice on 31 December 2015. This was within a period of thirty days of the receipt of the memo of dishonour on 4 December 2015. Consequently, the requirement stipulated in proviso (b) to Section 138 was fulfilled. Proviso (c) spells out a requirement that the drawer of the cheque has failed to make payment to the holder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause which was shown by the Appellant for the period commencing from 6 April 2018. However, if paragraphs 7 and 8 of the complaint are read together, it is evident that the Appellant had indicated sufficient cause for seeking condonation of the delay in the institution of the complaint. The High Court has merely adverted to the presumption that the first notice would be deemed to have been served if it was dispatched in the ordinary course. Even if that presumption applies, we are of the view that sufficient cause was shown by the Appellant for condoning the delay in instituting the complaint taking the basis of the complaint as the issuance of the first legal notice dated 31 December 2015. 12. In the view which we have taken, we have com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
