1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Complaint Dismissed: Time-barred under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act</h1> The court found the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be time-barred as it exceeded the one-month limitation period. ... - Issues:Challenge to proceedings in C.C.No. 321/02 and process issued under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the proceedings in C.C.No. 321/02 and the process issued against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant regarding a cheque dated 16.7.1999 for Rs. 15,000 which was returned due to 'Stop payment.' A legal notice demanding payment was sent on 2.2.2000 and the complaint was filed on 23.3.2000. The petitioner argued that the complaint was time-barred as it was filed after the one-month limitation period under Section 142(b) of the Act. The respondent did not dispute this fact.The court analyzed the statutory period of one month for filing a complaint under Section 138 and found that the complaint filed on 23.3.2000 was indeed beyond the limitation period. The court also noted that the amendment allowing for condonation of delay was not applicable to this case. Although the respondent argued that the 15-day period from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer should be considered, the court clarified that this period cannot be extended beyond 15 days. Therefore, the complaint was deemed time-barred, and taking cognizance of the offense and issuing the process were considered illegal.Furthermore, the court highlighted that the notice of demand should have been issued within 15 days of receiving intimation from the bank regarding the returned cheque, as per Proviso (b) to Section 138. In this case, the legal notice was issued after 15 days, making it non-compliant with the Act. The court emphasized that the amendment providing a 30-day period did not apply to this situation. Despite arguments for taking cognizance under Section 420 of the IPC for cheating, the court found that the requirements of Section 420 were not met in the complaint. The request was specifically for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and there were no allegations to support Section 420 of the IPC.In conclusion, the petition was allowed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the proceedings in C.C.No. 321/02 at the JMFC II Court at Hubli, along with the process issued against the petitioner/accused, were quashed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
