Post-dated cheque validity runs from the date on the cheque, and company impleadment is not always mandatory in cheque complaints.

For post-dated and ante-dated cheques, the six-month presentation period under Section 138 runs from the date shown on the cheque, not the date of signing or preparation, so a cheque presented within six months of that date is treated as timely. In complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141, non-impleadment of the company does not automatically defeat proceedings against the individual drawer where the drawer issued the cheque on behalf of the company and no statutory requirement makes the company's joinder mandatory. The objections based on limitation and maintainability therefore fail, and the criminal proceedings may continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a post-dated cheque is to be treated as drawn on the date it is signed and issued or on the date it bears for computing the period of presentation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not maintainable when the company on whose behalf the cheque was issued is not impleaded as an .

Issue (i): Whether a post-dated cheque is to be treated as drawn on the date it is signed and issued or on the date it bears for computing the period of presentation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Analysis: The provision requires presentation within six months from the date on which the cheque is drawn or within its validity period, whichever is earlier. The Court held that for both ante-dated and post-dated cheques, the relevant date for validity and presentation is the date appearing on the instrument, not the date of signing or preparation. Treating the date of execution as controlling would defeat the commercial purpose of post-dating and ante-dating cheques.

Conclusion: The cheque is to be treated as presented within time when presented within six months from the date it bears; the objection based on limitation fails.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not maintainable when the company on whose behalf the cheque was issued is not impleaded as an

Analysis: Section 141 deals with offences by companies and does not require that prosecution of the individual drawer must fail merely because the company is not also made an accused. The Court relied on the penal nature of the provision and the absence of any statutory condition making impleadment of the company mandatory in every case. On the facts, the petitioner had issued the cheques and could be proceeded against directly.

Conclusion: Non-impleadment of the company did not vitiate the complaints; the proceedings were maintainable against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petitions to quash the criminal proceedings were rejected, and the prosecutions arising from the dishonoured cheques were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: For a post-dated cheque, the statutory period under Section 138 runs from the date shown on the cheque, and a drawer who issued the cheque on behalf of a company may be prosecuted without necessarily impleading the company, unless the statute expressly requires otherwise.

---