9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence can be drawn as to the conduct of refusal, the complainant is bound to wait for 15 days. That cannot be the case when there is an outright denial of liability by issuing a reply. Section 138 NI Act gives an opportunity not only to the honest drawer, but also to a dishonest drawer to make amends and to escape from prosecution - in the present case, the alleged dishonest drawer did not want to make payment, but has chosen to say 'No Payment'. Therefore, there is no purpose in waiting for the completion of 15 days. The contention that the complaint is not maintainable has to be rejected - petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before expiry of 15 days from the issuance of notice under Section 138(c) of the Act, is not maintainable. 4.1. In support of the contention, the following decisions are relied upon: i) 2010 (10) SCC 708 Vinay Kumar Shailendra vs. Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee; iii) The cause of action to file a complaint accrues to a complainant/payee/holder of a cheque in due course if, (a) the dishonoured cheque is presented to the drawee bank within a period of six months from the date of its issue. (b) If the complainant has demanded payment of cheque amount within thirty days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque and (c) If the drawer has failed to pay the cheque amount within fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erlying the provision would thus make it abundantly clear that while the offence is complete upon dishonour, prosecution for such offence is deferred till the time the cause of action for such prosecution accrues to the complainant. The proviso in that sense, simply postpones the actual prosecution of the offender till such time he fails to pay the amount within the statutory period prescribed for such payment. There is, in our opinion, a plausible reason why this was done. The Parliament in its wisdom considered it just and proper to give to the drawer of a dishonoured cheque an opportunity to pay up the amount, before permitting his prosecution no matter the offence is complete, the moment the cheque was dishonoured. The law has to that e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d amount and when the petitioner has chosen to deny his liability itself, the respondent need not wait for the expiry of 15 days and the cause of action arises from the date on which the petitioner / accused failed to make the payment. In other words, it is contended that the payee need not wait for the completion of 15 days period to lapse when the petitioner / accused did not make any payment and when he denied his liability itself. 6.1. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision in the case of Rajendran vs. Danapal Pillai (Crl.RC.No.662 of 1994) decided on 17.06.1999; 15. In my opinion, the cause of action arises from the date of the denial made even on the receipt of the notice issued under proviso (b) to Section 138 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
