9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner as per credit bill No. 69 for ₹ 60,540 and has taken delivery of the said 100 bags of rice. The respondent issued a cheque on Canara Bank, Nazarath, dated September 22, 1992, for a sum of ₹ 30,540 in favour of the petitioner towards the part payment of the abovesaid credit bill. When the petitioner presented the said cheque on September 22, 1992, through his bank, namely, State Bank of India, Vadiveeswaram Branch, Nagercoil, for collection, it was returned on October 22, 1992, with an endorsement funds insufficient . The respondent knowing fully well that he did not have enough funds in his bank account issued the cheque, with an intention to cheat the petitioner. On November 2, 1992, the petitioner sent a registered n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is stated that the petitioner's father had given a settlement letter dated November 27, 1992, to pay the cheque amount of ₹ 30,450 but had not paid that amount and as the amount due under the cheque has been novated by the settlement letter dated November 27, 1992, the only course open to the respondent to proceed against him in a civil court and no complaint would lie. I am unable to accept this submission for the following reasons : According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, was with him, but the father had executed a settlement letter agreeing to settle the claim on December 11, 1992. But the respondent did not settle the claim on December 11, 1992, till which date, he wait ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless - ...... (c) the drawer of such cheque f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of action does not arise, for laying the complaint. Taking that view of the Matter, I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr. P. Kulandaivelu that the cause of action would arise from the very date of denial of the accused. 6. Mr. P. Kulandaivelu would refer to section 469(a) which reads as follows : 469. Commencement of the period of limitation. (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence,- (a) on the date of the offence; or. . . and that in the instant case, the offence would be deemed to have been committed on the date of the denial itself. I am unable to accept this submission because of the clear language of clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 and clause (b) of the proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
