TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the period for filing the complaint after issuance of notice begins from the date on which the postal endorsement of refusal or unclaimed status is made, or from the date on which the returned postal cover is received by the complainant. (ii) Whether the complainant proved the cheque transaction and dishonour so as to sustain conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issue (i): Whether the period for filing the complaint begins from the postal endorsement date or from the date on which the returned cover is received by the complainant.
Analysis: The relevant date for accrual of cause of action is tied to receipt of notice by the drawer, but when service is refused or the article is returned unclaimed, the sender cannot reasonably be expected to know the fact of deemed service before the returned cover reaches him. A practical and realistic construction of the notice requirement was applied, and the presumption of deemed service was held to arise when the complainant is informed of the refusal or receives the returned postal cover within a reasonable time.
Conclusion: The limitation period commenced from the date on which the complainant received the returned postal cover, and the complaint was within time; the acquittal on the ground of delay was unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the complainant proved the cheque transaction and dishonour so as to sustain conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Analysis: The evidence of the complainant was found acceptable, while the defence version that the cheque was issued for a different transaction was rejected as improbable. The cheque issuance was admitted, the explanation offered by the accused was found inconsistent with normal conduct, and the court found the foundational transaction and dishonour established.
Conclusion: The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was proved and conviction was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with compensation and default sentence imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour case, where notice is returned unclaimed or refused and the returned postal cover reaches the complainant within a reasonable time, deemed service and the limitation for complaint are reckoned from the date the complainant is notified of that return, not from the postal endorsement date.
TaxTMI 
