Section 138 cheque dishonour principles: limitation runs from the cheque date, and insolvency or notice defects do not defeat prosecution.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a post-dated cheque is treated as a cheque only from the date written on its face, so the six-month period is counted from that date. The drawer's insolvency does not by itself bar prosecution where the ingredients of the offence are otherwise made out. A demand notice is not invalid merely because it mentions an amount in excess of the cheque amount, if it still demands payment of the cheque amount. Inclusion of five cheques in one complaint does not, by itself, justify quashing the prosecution.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the period of six months under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be reckoned from the date on which a post-dated cheque is drawn or from the date written on the cheque; (ii) whether the drawer's insolvency bars prosecution under Section 138; (iii) whether a demand notice becomes invalid because it claims an amount in excess of the cheque amount while still demanding the cheque amount; and (iv) whether a complaint can be quashed on the ground that five cheques were included in a single prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the period of six months under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be reckoned from the date on which a post-dated cheque is drawn or from the date written on the cheque.

Analysis: The decisive question was the starting point for computing the statutory period in the case of a post-dated cheque. The reasoning adopted was that a post-dated cheque attains the character of a cheque only from the date shown on its face, and the statutory period must therefore be counted from that date.

Conclusion: The six-month period is to be reckoned from the date written on the cheque, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the drawer's insolvency bars prosecution under Section 138.

Analysis: Insolvency of the drawer does not wipe out the penal consequence attached to dishonour of a cheque where the ingredients of the offence are otherwise made out. The fact of insolvency does not operate as an absolute defence to liability under the provision.

Conclusion: The drawer's insolvency does not absolve liability under Section 138, and the objection failed.

Issue (iii): Whether a demand notice becomes invalid because it claims an amount in excess of the cheque amount while still demanding the cheque amount.

Analysis: The notice was tested against the statutory requirement that the drawer be called upon to pay the amount covered by the cheque. The inclusion of an additional or superfluous amount did not affect the validity of the notice so long as the cheque amount itself was demanded.

Conclusion: The notice was not invalid, and the objection failed.

Issue (iv): Whether the complaint can be quashed on the ground that five cheques were included in a single prosecution.

Analysis: The objection relating to joinder of transactions was rejected. The reasoning accepted that such a ground did not justify quashing the prosecution at the threshold, and the complaint could not be defeated on that basis.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed on the ground of clubbing the cheques, and the objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition for quashing was rejected in entirety, leaving the criminal complaint to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the date written on a post-dated cheque governs limitation, and objections based on insolvency, surplus demand in the notice, or joinder of multiple cheques do not by themselves defeat the prosecution.

---