2022 (4) TMI 419 - HC - Indian Laws

Criminal leave to appeal - Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - conviction of respondent for the offences as charged by allowing the complaint of the complainant - HELD THAT - This Court observes that in the present case, as is reflected from the impugned order dated 13.03.2019, the accused-respondent had issued a cheque, bearing cheque no. 179300, in favour of the complainant-appellant, which was dishonored and returned with the remark Account Closed . And that, the notice was sent to the accused-respondent by the complainant-appellant, which he refused to accept. Thereafter, the complainant-appellant filed a complaint on the 13th day i.e. 25.04.2012, after serving the notice from the date of refusal of acceptance of said notice, by the accused-respondent, which was presented prematurely instead of after the completion of prescribed statutory period of 15 days, which would be after 27.04.2012. This Court, therefore, finds that the complainant-appellant registered the complaint before the statutory period of 15 days, as prescribed under Section 138 (c) of the Act of 1881. The present criminal leave to appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding the mandatory 15-day period for payment after notice.
2. Applicability of legal precedents on the timeline for filing complaints under Section 138 of the Act.
3. Consideration of legislative intent behind Section 138(c) of the Act of 1881 in the context of criminal proceedings for dishonored cheques.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, focusing on the mandatory 15-day period for payment after notice. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for dishonoring a cheque before the completion of the prescribed statutory period, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the court.

2. Legal precedents cited by the appellant's counsel, including judgments from the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court, were examined. The court discussed the necessity of complying with the 15-day period under Section 138(c) to avoid criminal proceedings, emphasizing the legislative intent behind providing the drawer with an opportunity to settle the debt before facing legal consequences.

3. The court highlighted that the special provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act, making notice mandatory with a mandatory impact, aims to prevent criminal proceedings if the drawer settles the debt within the prescribed period. The judgment differentiated this Act from general criminal law, emphasizing the importance of the 15-day window for the drawer to avoid prosecution.

4. The court observed that the complaint was filed prematurely, before the completion of the 15-day period, as required by Section 138(c) of the Act. The appellant initiated legal action against the respondent before the statutory deadline, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance with the prescribed timeline.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the criminal leave to appeal based on the premature filing of the complaint, in line with the legislative intent behind Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to the statutory provisions, including the mandatory 15-day period, to ensure fairness and compliance with the law in cases of dishonored cheques.