9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the prosecution against the accused company when the cheque was drawn by a different company. 2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation due to the re-presentation of the cheque after issuing a legal notice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Prosecution Against the Accused Company: The first contention raised by the revision petitioners was that the cheque was drawn by Sunrise Oil Mills Limited, not Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Limited, and hence, the complaint against Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Limited is not maintainable. The court observed that the 2nd accused, who is the Managing Director of both companies, issued the cheque in question. It was established that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Sunrise Oil Mills Limited, and the cheque was issued in discharge of the debt owed by Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Limited. The court noted that both companies are sister concerns, and the 2nd accused, being the Managing Director of both, had issued the cheque due to insufficient funds in the account of Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Limited. The court found that the 1st accused company could not escape liability merely because the cheque was drawn on the account of a different company, as the cheque was issued to settle the debt of the 1st accused company. Therefore, the prosecution against Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Limited was valid. 2. Complaint Barred by Limitation: The second contention was that the complaint was barred by limitation as the cheque was re-presented after issuing a legal notice. The court examined the sequence of events and found that the cheque was presented four times. The first legal notice was issued on 9-12-1997 after the third dishonour, but it was returned unserved with the endorsement "no person was residing in the above address for the last seven days." The cheque was then re-presented on 28-1-1998 and dishonoured again, leading to another legal notice on 9-2-1998. The court emphasized that the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is complete only when three conditions are met: the cheque is presented within six months, a notice demanding payment is issued within fifteen days of dishonour, and the drawer fails to pay within fifteen days of receiving the notice. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, which held that once a notice is issued under section 138(b), the right to present the cheque again is forfeited. The court concluded that the complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action arose from the first notice, and the re-presentation of the cheque did not give rise to a fresh cause of action. Therefore, the complaint filed on 25-3-1998 was beyond the period of limitation. Conclusion: The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the conviction and sentences imposed on the revision petitioners. The fine amount, if any paid, was ordered to be refunded. The court held that the prosecution against the accused company was valid, but the complaint was barred by limitation due to the improper re-presentation of the cheque after issuing the first legal notice.
|
