9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves a revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 66/09, affirming a sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision under Section 397/401: The applicant/accused filed a revision against the judgment convicting him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Appellate Court set aside the sentence in default of depositing the damages amount, leading to the revision. Facts and Background: The case involved a loan transaction between the Respondent/complainant and the applicant, where the applicant issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Respondent sent multiple demand notices, leading to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Legal Arguments and Precedents: The applicant's Counsel argued that the limitation for issuing the demand notice should have been counted from the date of initial dishonor of the cheque. Citing a precedent, it was contended that failure to follow technical provisions of the Act could prevent conviction. Court's Analysis and Decision: The Court examined the sequence of notices sent by the Respondent and found that the third notice was duly served on the applicant within the prescribed period. Referring to an Apex Court decision, the Court held that the cause of action to file a complaint arises on the expiry of the payment period after notice issuance. Conclusion: Based on the findings of fact and legal precedents, the Court dismissed the revision, stating that the impugned complaint was not barred by time. The applicant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining jail sentence as per the lower Courts' judgment. The interim order for suspension of the sentence was lifted, and the applicant was given a deadline for surrender.
|
