9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against whom the respondent has filed a complaint, pending before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, at C.C. No. 21500 of 1989, for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by Act 66 of 1988, has field the present application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the above proceedings. 2. According to the complain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact of dishonouring of the cheque and requested him to arrange for payment of the amount due under the cheque. The notice was received by the petitioner on October 9, 1989. The petitioner did not make any payment but sent a reply containing a false allegation that the cheque had been obtained by coercion. Left with no option, the respondent filed the criminal complaint. 3. Thiru Viswanathan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endered by me in Crl. M.P. Nos. 9720 and 9755 of 1989, dated April 15, 1990, Babu Xavier v. Lalchand Munnath [1990] TLNJ 121 wherein I had held that, in the case of a post-dated or ante-dated cheque, the date on which the cheque is signed, complete in its form, is the date on which the cheque is drawn, despite the fact that the cheque bears a different date. 4. Per contra, Thiru Kandasamy, lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete in its form and not on the date the cheque bears. No legal contention has been put forward before me now, necessitating a reconsideration of the above judgment. A post-dated cheque is drawn, not on the date the cheque bears, but on the date the drawer signs the cheque complete in its form. The complaint in the instant case shows that the cheque was signed by the petitioner complete in it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
