TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, H.P. on 15.03.2005, i.e. after six months from the date of issuance of the cheque which lapsed on 13.03.2004. Hon ble Supreme Court in SHRI ISHAR ALLOY STEELS LTD. VERSUS JAYASWALS NECO LIMITED [ 2001 (2) TMI 984 - SUPREME COURT] , has been pleased to hold that the law mandates a cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable necessarily within six months as from the date of its issuance (this judgment relates to the period when the validity of cheque used to be for a period of six months) - in the said judgement, this Court observes that there is no infirmity in the findings returned by learned Trial Court that the cheque in issue in fact was presented before the payee bank after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hallenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. in case bearing Complaint No.2081/ 2005, titled as Dolma Devi Versus Roshan Lal, in terms whereof, a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the present appellant was dismissed by the learned Court below. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant/complainant (hereinafter to be referred as the complainant ), filed a complaint filed against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that she had filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur against an award which was made in fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t erred in not appreciating that in the notice which was issued by the appellant after dishonouring of the cheque, all the ingredients of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act were complied with and simply because one line was not written therein qua demand of money this does not means that the same did not amount to statutory compliance of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has further submitted that the notice that was issued was not a general notice but it was in terms of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued after the cheque in issue stood dishonoured, but this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by learned Trial Court, which adopted a hyper technical view in the matter. Learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have also carefully gone through the judgment passed by learned Court below. 8. The reasons, on account of which the complaint of the present appellant has been dismissed, already stands spelled out by me in the above part of the judgment. It is not in dispute that the cheque in issue is dated 14.09.2004. The same was drawn upon H.P. State Cooperative Bank, branch Beri, District Bilaspur, H.P. This cheque though was presented by the appellant with her bank on 07.03.2005, yet the same was received by the payee bank, i.e. H.P. State Cooperative Bank, branch Beri, District Bilaspur, H.P. on 15.03.2005, i.e. after six months from the date of issuance of the cheque which lapsed on 13.03.2004. 9. Hon ble Supreme Court in Shri Ishwar Alloy S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absolve the person issuing the cheque of his criminal liability under Section 138 of the Act, who shall otherwise may be liable to pay the cheque amount to the payee in a civil action initiated under the law. A combined reading of Sections 2, 72 and 138 of the Act would leave no doubt in our mind that the law mandates the cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable. Such presentation is necessarily to be made within six months at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, whether presented personally or through another bank, namely, the collecting bank of the payee. 10. Therefore, from the reading of the above para of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court, this Court observes that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. 13. The words that are used in the above mentioned proviso are makes a demand for the payment of money by giving a notice in writing . The relevant paras of the notice which was issued by the appellant to the respondent after the dishnonouring of the cheque have already been quoted by me hereinabove. Perusal thereof demonstrates that though in the said notice there was a mention of the dishonouring of the cheque, but in terms of the language of the proviso referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
