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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was premature and thus not maintainable because it was filed before expiry of 15 days from the deemed service of notice, and whether the conviction based on such complaint could be sustained.
Analysis: The cheque was dishonoured and a legal notice was dispatched by registered post, but there was no evidence of actual service. The Court applied the presumption regarding service of registered notice and treated deemed service as arising after 30 days from dispatch. It then applied the settled law that the offence under Section 138 is complete only when the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receipt of notice, and that no cause of action accrues before that period expires. Since the complaint was filed before expiry of the statutory waiting period, the complaint had been instituted before the cause of action had crystallised. In such a situation, the presumption as to legally enforceable debt could not sustain the prosecution, because the complaint itself was not maintainable in law.
Conclusion: The complaint was premature and not maintainable. The conviction and sentence were unsustainable and were set aside, resulting in acquittal of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be maintained unless the statutory period of 15 days after service of notice has fully elapsed, because the cause of action arises only thereafter.