9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 756 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - default in payment of the cheque amount - case is filed after completing of 30 days - applicability of section 138 of Limitation Act - HELD THAT - In case of M/S. SAKETH INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS M/S. INDIA SECURITIES LIMITED 1999 (3) TMI 591 - SUPREME COURT , the Apex Court has observed that where a period is fixed within which a criminal prosecution or a civil action may be commenced, the day on which the offence is committed or the cause of action arises is excluded in the computation. So, also, where a statute provides that something may only be done within a certain period from the passing of the Act, the day on which the Act was passed is excluded. There are no infirmity in the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. Since the petitioner herein has failed to make out his case before the Courts below, this Court has no hesitation to say that in the revision, appreciation of the factual issues are not permissible. The instant revision petition stands dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Compliance with statutory provisions and limitation period. 3. Examination of evidence and burden of proof. 4. Legally enforceable debt or liability. 5. Computation of limitation period for filing the complaint. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The petitioner issued a cheque for ?11,00,000, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant, after receiving the dishonor memo, issued a statutory demand notice. Despite receiving the notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment, leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court convicted the petitioner, and the sessions court upheld the conviction, leading to this revision petition. 2. Compliance with Statutory Provisions and Limitation Period: The petitioner argued that the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 142(1)(a) & (b) read with Section 138(c) of the Act. The complaint was filed on 27.08.2016, while the cheque was issued on 15.04.2016 and dishonored on 13.06.2016. The statutory demand notice was issued on 11.07.2016 and received by the petitioner on 13.07.2016. The petitioner contended that the complaint was filed one day late, beyond the 30-day limitation period. 3. Examination of Evidence and Burden of Proof: The complainant (PW-1) provided evidence that he supplied materials and labor for road construction under PMGSY and that the petitioner issued the cheque in discharge of his liability. The trial court evaluated the evidence, including testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, who corroborated the complainant's claims. The petitioner did not present any defense witnesses and denied the incriminating materials during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability: The petitioner argued that there was no documentary evidence to prove the legal entrustment or enforceable liability. However, the complainant's testimony and the issuance of the cheque were considered sufficient to establish the debt. The courts below found that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, and its dishonor constituted an offense under Section 138 of the Act. 5. Computation of Limitation Period for Filing the Complaint: The court referred to the judgments in Econ Antri Limited v. Rom Industries Limited and Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd., which clarified the computation of the limitation period. The general rule is to exclude the first day and include the last day. The statutory notice was received on 13.07.2016, and the 15-day period ended on 27.07.2016. The cause of action started on 28.07.2016, and the complaint was filed on 27.08.2016, within the 30-day period. Conclusion: The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the findings of the lower courts. The complaint was filed within the prescribed limitation period, and the evidence supported the conviction. The revision petition was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
|
