9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the proceedings in C. C. No. 479 of 1990 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, should be quashed invoking Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Whether the cheque issued by the petitioner on March 6, 1990, for an amount of Rs. 15,192.65 drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Ernakulam, and subsequently dishonoured falls under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Interpretation of when a post-dated cheque can be considered to have been drawn for the purpose of Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 479 of 1990 by invoking Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent alleged that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by dishonouring a cheque issued on March 6, 1990. The matter was referred to a Division Bench for consideration due to conflicting views on a previous case. 2. The petitioner argued that since the cheque was post-dated and not presented within six months from the date it was drawn, no offence under Section 138 of the Act is disclosed. The respondent contended that the cheque was considered drawn on the date it bears, i.e., March 6, 1990, and presented within six months, satisfying the conditions of the proviso to Section 138. 3. The issue of when a post-dated cheque can be considered drawn for the purpose of Section 138 was examined. The Act does not specify when a cheque is deemed drawn, but the presumption is on the date it bears. The court considered the nature of post-dated cheques, their negotiability, and the implied guarantee of funds. It was concluded that a post-dated cheque is operational from the date it bears, and in this case, since presented within six months of that date, the conditions of Section 138 were met. 4. The court emphasized that interpreting Section 138 must consider the character of post-dated cheques and the legislative intent to hold drawers accountable for bounced cheques. The objective is to enhance cheque acceptability and penalize dishonoured cheques. The court rejected the view that a post-dated cheque's drawing date should be the delivery date, as it could allow circumvention of the Act. 5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Criminal M. C. as without merit, upholding that the cheque in question, though post-dated, was considered drawn on the date it bears, and its presentation within six months satisfied the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. The decision disagreed with a previous case's interpretation on the issue.
|
