TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Premature Complaint dismissed; petitioner acquitted and discharged; Amicus Curiae commended; lower court judgments overturned</h1> <h3>Vivek Anand son of Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma Versus The State of Jharkhand, Bakhtiyar Ahmad Khan</h3> Vivek Anand son of Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma Versus The State of Jharkhand, Bakhtiyar Ahmad Khan - TMI Issues Involved:1. Prematurity of the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Service of Legal Notice and Deemed Service.3. Cause of Action and Compliance with Statutory Timelines.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Prematurity of the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:The primary contention raised by the petitioner’s counsel was that the Complaint was premature as the statutory period prescribed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not duly satisfied. The cheque issued on 24.10.2009 was dishonored on 10.11.2009, and the legal notice was dispatched on 19.11.2009. The Complaint was filed on 22.12.2009, which was argued to be premature as it was filed before the expiry of the 15-day period post deemed service of the notice. The court found that the Complaint, filed on the 4th day from the deemed service of notice, was indeed premature and hence not maintainable as the cause of action had not crystalized.2. Service of Legal Notice and Deemed Service:The learned courts below had considered deemed service of the notice by referring to the General Clauses Act. The court held that presumption regarding service of notice sent through registered cover can be drawn only upon expiry of 30 days from the date of dispatch of notice, as established by the Supreme Court in Subodh S. Salaskar vs. Jayprakash M. Sah and Another. In this case, the deemed service of the legal notice was taken as 18.12.2009, and the Complaint was filed on 22.12.2009, which was before the expiry of the 15-day period required for the drawer to make the payment.3. Cause of Action and Compliance with Statutory Timelines:The court emphasized that for a Complaint under Section 138 to be maintainable, all the conditions stipulated in the proviso to Section 138 must be satisfied, including the 15-day period post service of notice. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey and Another, which clarified that a Complaint filed before the expiry of this 15-day period is premature and not maintainable. The court concluded that the Complaint in this case was filed prematurely as the statutory timelines were not adhered to, and thus, the Complaint was non-est in the eyes of law.Conclusion:The court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, acquitted the petitioner, and discharged him from the liability of the bail bonds. The court also noted that the Complainant could file a fresh Complaint explaining the delay. The court appreciated the assistance provided by the Amicus Curiae and directed the payment of his legal remuneration.Final Orders:- The judgments dated 24.10.2011 and 10.12.2010 were set aside.- The petitioner was acquitted and discharged from bail bonds.- The Complainant was allowed to file a fresh Complaint if desired.- The court recorded appreciation for the Amicus Curiae and directed payment for his services.- The lower court records were ordered to be sent back, and the order was to be communicated to the lower court through FAX/e-mail.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
