9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble and cheque can be presented any number of times during its validity period, as a natural corollary of the same, drawee is required to be bound by successive information received about encashment or return, and demand for payment within 30 days from any fresh information can be raised. However, clause (c) makes it mandatory to file complaint in case drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice which means once demand notice is issued, thereafter no presentation is permitted. Reliance placed on the judgment of MSR Leathers is misconceived on two counts. Firstly, it is required to be noticed that in paras 4 and 5 of the complaint, the respondent-complainant has mentioned that the cheque was presented again on an assurance given by the petitioner, while this was not the case in D.V. VANITHA VERSUS S.L. VEZHAVENDHAN [ 2022 (2) TMI 1381 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and additionally this scenario is specifically covered by the reasoning given in MSR's case - Secondly, in Vanitha's case, Division Bench was exercising revisional jurisdiction after trial has completed and thus was having the benefit of observing and examining all the aspects of the case, while in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the cheque in question was dishonoured at the first instance on 11.09.2017 for the reason other reason-bank is merged , there was no occasion for the respondent-complainant to have presented the same again as there was no probability of its encashment on account of bank having merged way-back in the year 2005. He further submits that though successive presentation of the cheque during its validity period was permissible in law, however, in the wake of the reason mentioned for its dishonor, its successive presentation was not going to fetch its encashment, as such the same was not permissible in law. He further points out that in the present facts, demand notice served post second dishonor though within 15 days thereafter was wholly barred in law being in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 138 of the 1881 Act. 6. On the other hand, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent despite service as duly noticed in the previous orders dated 14.01.2019 and 05.02.2021. Nonetheless, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the complainant has been duly represented by his counsel before the tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s committed and prosecution immediately launched and another where the prosecution is deferred till the cheque presented again gets dishonoured for the second or successive time. 9. At this stage it is necessitated to have a look at the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder:- 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.-*** Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additionally this scenario is specifically covered by the reasoning given in MSR's case (supra). Secondly, in Vanitha's case (supra), Division Bench was exercising revisional jurisdiction after trial has completed and thus was having the benefit of observing and examining all the aspects of the case, while in the present case the trial is at very initial stage only and this Court does not have the benefit of examining the evidence and submissions made from both the sides. 12. Granting the relief prayed for on account of this technical ground would also not be in harmony with the object and purpose with which the 1881 Act was brought into existence. Purposive interpretation has been recognized as a sound principle for the Courts to adopt, while interpreting statutory provisions. In the case of New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar (AIR 1963 SC 1207), it was observed: It is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statute, and which effectuate the object of the Legislature. If an expression is susceptible of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt in dishonour of all cheques signed by the previously authorised signatories. There is in our view no qualitative difference between a situation where the dishonour takes place on account of the substitution by a new set of authorised signatories resulting in the dishonour of the cheques already issued and another situation in which the drawer of the cheque changes his own signatures or closes the account or issues instructions to the bank not to make the payment. So long as the change is brought about with a view to preventing the cheque being honoured the dishonour would become an offence under Section 138 subject to other conditions prescribed being satisfied. There may indeed be situations where a mismatch between the signatories on the cheque drawn by the drawer and the specimen available with the bank may result in dishonour of the cheque even when the drawer never intended to invite such a dishonour. We are also conscious of the fact that an authorised signatory may in the ordinary course of business be replaced by a new signatory ending the earlier mandate to the bank. Dishonour on account of such changes that may occur in the course of ordinary business of a company, par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
