9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the presentation of post-dated cheques beyond six months. 2. Requirement to prosecute the company along with the individual who issued the cheques. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Presentation of Post-Dated Cheques Beyond Six Months The petitioner contended that since the cheques were issued on 27-11-1990 but dated 27-12-1990, they should be considered as drawn on 27-11-1990. Consequently, presenting them on 13-6-1991 would be beyond the six-month validity period, making the criminal complaints invalid. However, the respondent argued that the cheques were post-dated, and the six-month validity should be calculated from the date on the cheques, i.e., 27-12-1990. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act specifies that a cheque must be presented within six months from the date it is drawn or within its validity period, whichever is earlier. The term "drawn" is not explicitly defined in the Act. The Madras High Court in G. Thirugnanasambandam v. R. Shanmugasundaram held that a cheque is drawn on the date it is signed and issued, not on the date it bears. However, the court in this judgment disagreed with this interpretation, stating that for post-dated cheques, the validity period should be computed from the date on the cheque, not the date of issuance. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of providing cheque facilities to accommodate business exigencies. Thus, the cheques dated 27-12-1990 and presented on 13-6-1991 were within the six-month validity period, making the complaints valid. 2. Requirement to Prosecute the Company Along with the Individual Who Issued the Cheques The petitioner argued that since the cheques were issued on behalf of a company, the company should also be made a party to the proceedings. The respondent countered that under Section 138 of the Act, it is not mandatory to prosecute the company along with the individual who issued the cheque. Section 141 of the Act states that if an offence is committed by a company, every person in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offence is also deemed guilty. However, it does not mandate that the company must be prosecuted alongside the individual. The court referenced several judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of M.P., which clarified that individuals can be prosecuted separately from the company. The Calcutta High Court in Satish Kr. Jhunjhunwalla v. Registrar of Companies also held that proceedings are not invalidated by the absence of the company as an accused. Given these precedents and the lack of a statutory requirement to prosecute the company, the court concluded that the complaints against the petitioner were maintainable without the company being a party. Conclusion The court found no grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 104 and 105 of 1991. The criminal petitions were dismissed, affirming that the cheques were validly presented within the six-month period and that the prosecution of the petitioner without the company was legally permissible.
|
