9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used under Section 138 N.I. Act do not imply different meanings. It is safe to infer that the use of the word of in Section 138(b) N.I. Act does not imply either that the day on which information regarding dishonor of cheque is received by the complainant from the bank is to be included while computing the limitation period for issuance of a valid legal notice - Applying the law to the facts of the present case, it is noted that the petitioner relies on the dates of return memos, i.e., dates of return of cheques in question, to compute the period of 30 days prescribed in the statute and contends that the legal demands notices were not issued in time. To the contrary, the complainant relies on the dates of receipt of return statements from its Bank, i.e., the dates on which intimation was received regarding dishonor of the cheques in question, to submit that the legal demand notices were issued within the statutory period. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that the legal notices were posted by the complainant Company within 30 days of the receipt of information from its Bank regarding dishonor of the cheques in question and were not time-barred. The contentions raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the cheques in question got dishonored upon presentation and were returned vide return memos dated 29.05.2015, 19.10.2015 and 21.07.2016 respectively with the remarks drawer sign differ and no funds . The complainant Company is stated to have received return statements from its Bank on 19.06.2015, 29.10.2015 and 27.07.2016 in respect of the aforesaid cheques, indicating that the same had got dishonored. Consequently, it posted legal demand notices on 07.07.2015, 28.11.2015 and 26.08.2016 respectively calling upon the petitioner Company to repay the debt owed within 15 days of receipt of the notices. When the due amount was not repaid within the statutory period, the impugned criminal complaints came to be filed against the petitioners, who as noted above are the accused Company and its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory respectively. The details of the aforesaid complaints are summarized in the table given below:- Criminal Complaint No. Date of Cheque Date of Return Memo Date of receipt of Return Statement Date of posting of Legal Notice 20581/2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereto. Clause (b), in particular, of the proviso prescribes that in order to establish commission of an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act, a legal demand notice ought to have been issued to the accused within 30 days of the receipt of information by the complainant that the cheque was returned as unpaid. 10. Needless to state, the N.I. Act, being a penal statute, warrants strict construction and as a result, before attributing criminal liability on an accused under the N.I. Act, the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed are required to be satisfied. 11. In the present case, the primary issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of submissions is that the legal demand notices were not issued by the complainant Company within 30 days of the receipt of information regarding dishonor of the cheques, i.e., from the date of the return memos, and thus the complaints are not maintainable. On the other hand, the complainant Company maintains that it was intimated of the dishonor of the cheques in question only when its Bank sent the aforesaid return statements, and the legal demand notices were issued within 30 days thereafter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich information regarding dishonor of cheque is received by the complainant is to be included in calculation of limitation period under Section 138(b) N.I. Act, it is deemed expedient to allude to the decision rendered in Econ Antri Limited v. Rom Industries Limited and Another reported as (2014) 11 SCC 769 , where a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while answering a reference, rejected the contention that use of two different words in Section 138 N.I. Act, i.e. from and of , is indicative of different meanings and resolved the conflict arising from discordant views taken in Saketh India Ltd. and Others v. India Securities Ltd. reported as (1999) 3 SCC 1 and SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore reported as (1999) 4 SCC 567 in the following terms:- 26. We have extensively referred to Saketh. The reasoning of this Court in Saketh based on the above English decisions and decision of this Court in Haru Das Gupta which aptly lay down and explain the principle that where a particular time is given from a certain date within which an act has to be done, the day of the date is to be excluded, commends itself to us as against the reasoning of this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computing the period of 30 days. As held in Fallon, ex p the words of , from and after may, in a given case, mean really the same thing. As stated in Stroud s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 3, 1953 Edn., Note (5), the word of is sometimes equivalent of after . xxx 42. Having considered the question of law involved in this case in proper perspective, in the light of relevant judgments, we are of the opinion that Saketh lays down the correct proposition of law. We hold that for the purpose of calculating the period of one month, which is prescribed under Section 142(b) of the NI Act, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose. We hold that SIL Import, USA does not lay down the correct law. Needless to say that any decision of this Court which takes a view contrary to the view taken in Saketh by this Court, which is confirmed by us, do not lay down the correct law on the question involved in this reference. The reference is answered accordingly. (emphasis added) 15. The view taken in Econ Antri (Supra) has been reiterated and applied by the Supreme Court in Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi v. State of Gujarat and Another re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
