9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the presentation of post-dated cheques within the statutory period.
Analysis: The judgment by Hon'ble Judge Padmini Jesudurai pertains to an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash proceedings against the accused for an offense under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint alleged that the accused issued a post-dated cheque on January 13, 1989, for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000, drawn on a specific bank. The respondent presented the cheque on September 9, 1989, leading to its dishonor due to insufficient funds. The respondent then served a notice to the accused, who failed to make the payment, resulting in the criminal complaint. The primary contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was that the cheque, though post-dated, was drawn on January 13, 1989, and presented on September 9, 1989, which exceeded the statutory period of six months as required by section 138 of the Act. The counsel relied on a previous judgment by the same judge to support the argument that the date on which the cheque is signed and complete in form is considered the date it is drawn, irrespective of the date mentioned on the cheque. In response, the respondent's counsel argued that interpreting post-dated cheques based on the date mentioned on them would defeat the purpose of section 138 and that the intention of the drawer should be considered for such cheques. After considering the arguments, the judge held that a post-dated cheque is drawn on the date it is signed and issued, not the date mentioned on the cheque. In this case, the cheque was signed and handed over on January 13, 1989, making it drawn on that date, even though it was post-dated to April 18, 1989. As the cheque was presented beyond the six-month statutory period, the judge concluded that there was non-compliance with section 138, and the offense was not established. Consequently, the judge allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the statutory requirements under the Negotiable Instruments Act for prosecuting offenses related to dishonored cheques.
|
