9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to December 1988. After giving credit to the various part payments made by the accused, a sum of ₹ 59,363.16 and interest was found due. In respect of the debt, the accused issued five cheques totalling to ₹ 60,684.16. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned dishonoured and thereafter once again at the request and the assurance given by the accused, the complainant presented it for encashment. Then again, the cheques were returned with remarks refer to drawer . The complainant received the intimation of the return on 5.10.89 and 13.10.89. The complainant issued lawyer's notice on 16.10.89 to the accused, calling upon her to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the provision to Section 138 of the Act has not been complied with and the complaint was infirm. Mr. Udairaj Golecha, would submit that the date which the cheque bears is the material date and six months is to be calculated from the date. He relied upon Anil Kumar, Gulshan Rai, JT 1993 (6) S.C. 280. In this case, the Apex Court had considered the question as to what is the date from which the period of six months, as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act is to be reckoned. After considering the judgment of this Court in Babu Xavier v. Lal Chand Munoth 1990 TNJL (Crl.) 121 and Major K. Seth v. Fernandez 1991 (2) KLT 65, the Apex Court had over ruled the decision of this Court in Babu Xavier v. Lal Chand Munoth 1990 TNLJ (Cri.) 121 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding the fifth ground viz. that five cheques were involved in this case and that a single complaint cannot be filed for more than three cheques, Justice Arunachalam had occasion to consider such a contention in Cr. O.P. 8731,677 of 1992 and other cases, in which a ground was taken that more than three instances had been clubbed together in a single prosecution, which is contrary to the mandate under Section 217 of Code of Criminal Procedure. While answering that point, the learned Judge has pointed out that there is a patent violation of provisions of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in that more than three transactions within a year form part of this prosecution. The learned Judge proceeds further and has laid as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
