9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code based on limitation. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard arguments from both parties regarding the quashing of the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had quashed the prosecution solely on the grounds that the complaint was filed two days after the expiry of the limitation period. The notice under Section 138 of the Act was sent on 4th January, 1997, served on the accused on 10th January, 1997, with a 15-day payment deadline expiring on 25th January, 1997. The cause of action to file the complaint arose on 26th January, 1997, excluding that day as per Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, the limitation period started from 27th January, 1997, and the complaint was filed on 26th January, 1997, within one month from that date, thus within the time limit. The Court referred to a previous judgment in M/s Saketh India Ltd. and Ors. v. M/s India Securities Ltd, where it was established that the day the cause of action arises must be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Applying this principle, the Court found that the complaint in the present case was filed within the prescribed time limit, and the High Court erred in concluding a two-day delay in filing the complaint. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to quash the prosecution was unjustified. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order by the High Court was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed, and the prosecution was reinstated for further proceedings.
|
