1994 (4) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s in the above case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and the allegations in it are briefly as follows : As per the request made by the accused, the complainant paid ₹ 15,000 on April 15, 1992, as a loan to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... But this time also the cheque had been returned dishonoured with the endorsement not arranged for and property not marked by memo dated November 17, 1992. The complainant issued a notice on December 4, 1992, to the accused calling upon her to repay the amount in cash along with collection charges. The accused had received the notice on December 5, 1992. The accused had not paid the amount. He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... court on December 16, 1992, i.e., within fifteen days from December 5, 1992, the date on which the accused had received the statutory notice sent by the complainant. 4. I shall presently refer to the relevant provisions in section 138 of the Act. Clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 reads as follows : (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X