9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch a demand only being the incriminating circumstance which expose the drawer for being proceeded against under section 138 of the Act. That being the position, the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and the High Court do not call for interference in these appeals, though for different reasons indicated. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1136 OF 2003 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1137 OF 2001 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2003 - DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ. Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the Appellant. Mrs. Lalita Kaushik for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J. - An interesting question in the background of clause ( b ) of the proviso to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the Act ) arises i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the accused has not committed any offence under section 138 of the Act. Three appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos. 270/1996, 271/1996 and 272/1996 were filed by the two appellants. The appeals were disposed of by the impugned common judgment. 3. One appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 272/1996 was allowed and the respondent was found guilty of offence punishable under section 138 of the Act. The other two appeals were dismissed and the order of acquittal was affirmed. The basic conclusion which formed the foundation for upholding the acquittal was that the notices sent did not meet the requirements of law, more particularly, the proviso to clause ( b ) of section 138 of the Act. 4. It has to be noted that one common notice of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proviso to section 138 of the Act and valid or not. Section 139 of the Act has also relevance and needs reference. We extract below sections 138 and 139 of the Act : "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain portion of section 138 of the Act goes to show it needs to be established that the cheque was drawn for the purpose of discharging in whole or in part of any debt or any liability, even though the notice as contemplated may involve demands for compensation, costs interest etc. The drawer of the cheque stands absolved from his liability under section 138 of the Act if he makes the payment of the amount covered by the cheque of which he was the drawer within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice or before the complaint is filed. 9. In Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal [2000] 2 SCC 380 it was held that the legislative intent as evident from section 138 of the Act is that if for the dishonoured cheque the demand is not met within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellants in Suman Sethi s case ( supra ) to contend that if the indication in the notice of other amounts than that covered by the cheque issued, does not as held by this Court invalidate the notice, there is no reason as to why a consolidated notice for two complainants cannot be issued. The extreme plea as is sought to be raised in this case based upon Suman Sethi s case ( supra ) is clearly untenable. Though no formal notice is prescribed in the provision, the statutory provision indicates in unmistakable terms as to what should be clearly indicated in the notice and what manner of demand it should make. In Suman Sethi s case ( supra ) on considering the contents of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
