9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the 'Act') In the complaint it was averred that a cheque was issued by the appellant on 31.3.1998 which was dishonoured by the bank when , presented on 11.4.1998. Notice dated 27.4.1998 was duly served on the appellant. Since the accused appellant assured that the cheque will be honoured if it is presented again, the cheque was presented but was again dishonoured on 30.9.1998 for which notice dated 13.10.1998 was again served on the appellant. But no payment was made. Appellant filed an application in terms of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.') before the trial court for discharge. It was averred that the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. 4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. 5. For resolution of the controversy Sections 138 and 142 of the Act are relevant. They read as follows: Section 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 sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138; (Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.) (c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under Section 138. 6. Before the amendment, the proviso, as quoted above, was not there. Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 does not put any embargo upon the payee to successively present a dishonoured cheque during the period of its validity. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expiration of the day preceding its commencement. 8. All laws that affect substantive rights generally operate prospectively and there is a presumption against their retrospectivity if they affect vested rights and obligations, unless the legislative intent is clear and compulsive. Such retrospective effect may be given where there are express words giving retrospective effect or where the language used necessarily implies that such retrospective operation is intended. Hence the question whether a statutory provision has retrospective effect or not depends primarily on the language in which it is couched. If the language is clear and unambiguous, effect will have to be given to the provision is question in accordance with its tenor. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
