9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 139 - SC - Indian LawsOffence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - contention that as a period of six months had lapsed between the date of drawl of the cheque - Held that - the use of word from in Section 138(a) requires exclusion of the first day on which the cheque was drawn and inclusion of the last day within which such act needs to be done. In other words six months would expire one day prior to the date in the corresponding month and in case no such day falls the last day of the immediate previous month. Hence for all purposes the date on which the cheque was drawn i.e. 31.12.2005 will be excluded and the period of six months will be reckoned from the next day i.e. from 1.1.2006; meaning thereby that according to the British calendar the period of six months will expire at the end of the 30th day of June 2006. Since the cheque was presented on 30.6.2006 we are of the view that it was presented within the period prescribed. Decision in the case Econ Antri Ltd. vs. Rom Industries Ltd. & Anr. AIR 2013 (9) TMI 246 - SUPREME COURT approving given in Saketh 1999 (3) TMI 591 - SUPREME COURT and Haru Das Gupta 1972 (2) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA followed wherein it was held that where a particular time is given from a certain date within which an act has to be done the day of the date is to be excluded. Viewed from any angle the prosecution is not time barred and therefore cannot be scuttled at this stage on this ground. - Decided against the petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of cheque presentation within the stipulated six-month period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Calculation of the six-month period for cheque validity. 3. Applicability of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in computing the period. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Cheque Presentation within Six Months: The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque dated 31st December 2005, which was presented on 30th June 2006 but was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The accused argued that the cheque was presented beyond the six-month validity period, making the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 invalid. The trial court, sessions court, and the High Court all rejected the accused's application for discharge, holding that the cheque was presented within the six-month period. 2. Calculation of the Six-Month Period for Cheque Validity: The accused contended that the six-month period should be calculated from the date of the cheque's drawl, including the drawl date, which would make the presentation date beyond the six-month period. The Supreme Court reviewed the calculation methods suggested by the accused, which were based on counting days in each month, but found them inconsistent with the legal interpretation of a "month." 3. Applicability of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897: The Supreme Court examined whether Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, which excludes the first day and includes the last day for calculating time periods, applied to this case. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Haru Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal and Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd., which supported the exclusion of the first day (cheque drawl date) and inclusion of the last day (presentation date). Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the term "month" should be interpreted according to the British calendar, not as a fixed number of days (30 days). Therefore, the six-month period for presenting the cheque should exclude the date of drawl (31st December 2005) and include the last day (30th June 2006). Consequently, the cheque was presented within the valid period, and the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not time-barred. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the case. Significant Phrases and Legal Terminology: - "Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881" - "Presented within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn" - "Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897" - "Exclusion of the first day and inclusion of the last day" - "British calendar month" - "Prosecution is not time-barred" The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting statutory time periods in accordance with established legal principles, ensuring clarity and consistency in the application of the law.
|
