9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the Respondent/Complainant that a Cheque dated 16.7.1999 was issued for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in connection with the liability to be discharged by the petitioner/accused but, when said cheque was tendered, it was returned with an endorsement as Stop payment . The intimation from the bank was received on 17.1.2000. So, a legal notice dated 2.2.2000 was issued to the petitioner/accused by the Respondent/Complainant demanding the amount of cheque. Said notice was served on the petitioner/accused on 4.2.2000. Since no payment was made thereafter, complaint was filed on 23.3.2000. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused, said complaint was filed after one month from the date of cause of action i.e., the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice by the drawer of the cheque and not from the date of receipt of acknowledgement of demand notice sent by the payee or from the date of knowledge to the payee about the date of service/receipt of demand notice by the drawer. The period of 15 days provided in the said proviso is the period given to the drawer to make payment. So the said proviso cannot be read or understood as giving more than 15 days time to drawer or, to take advantage by the payee to show the cause of action beyond 16th day of receipt of demand notice by the drawer. Simply because, the complainant received the acknowledgment on 7.2.2000, the period of 15 days provided in proviso (c) cannot be calculated from that date, and consequently, it could be held that complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izance for that offence, though the complaint was barred by time so far as offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned. 9. It is true that if the allegations in a complaint make out a case of cheating, certainly, the Court is required to look into it and take cognizance and issue process for that offence. But, in the case on hand, the requirements of Section 420 are not at all forthcoming and that is why, in the complaint, the Respondent/Complainant himself had not requested the Court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The request was to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, there is no allegation whatsoever in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
