2012 (3) TMI 682 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of the period prescribed for filing a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifically determining whether the period should commence from the date the notice was refused or left unclaimed, or from the date when the refusal was notified by delivering the returned postal cover.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Commencement of Period for Filing Complaint
The complainant's appeal pertains to a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the accused issued a dishonored cheque. The crux of the matter is whether the period for filing a complaint should start from the date of refusal of notice or from the date when the returned postal cover was received by the complainant.

Issue 2: Deemed Service and Date Calculation
The returned postal cover indicated that the postman served an intimation on a specific date, prompting the accused to argue that the refusal date should mark the commencement of the 15-day period for payment. However, the complainant contends that the date of deemed service should be when the returned postal cover is received, not when the notice was refused.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Proviso (c) to Section 138
The court deliberated on the interpretation of proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the need for a practical and reasonable approach to determine the date of receipt of notice for the purpose of filing a complaint within the stipulated period.

Issue 4: Precedents and Legal Interpretation
Precedents such as Ibrahimkutty Haji v. State of Kerala and Gopalakrishnan v. Noorjahan were cited to support the argument that the date of deemed service should be when the complainant receives the returned postal cover, aligning with the principle that the cause of action arises upon the expiry of the notice period.

Issue 5: Application of Presumption of Deemed Service
The court emphasized that the presumption of deemed service should be invoked based on the date when the sender is notified of the failure to serve the notice, ensuring practicality and fairness in determining the commencement of the complaint filing period.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the acquittal and convicting the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation to the complainant within a specified timeframe, highlighting the importance of adhering to legal timelines and procedural requirements in such cases.