2019 (2) TMI 545

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tiable Instruments Act. 3. For convenience, the facts in C.C.No. 4029/2010 (Crl.O.P. No. 20401 of 2011) are referred to. Case of the appellant-complainant is that they had business dealings with the respondents and in the course of business dealings, the respondents had issued three cheques viz. 1. Cheque 316693 dated 20.07.2009 for Rs. 1,44,362/- 2. Cheque 316663 dated 30.07.2009 for Rs. 4,26,400/- 3. Cheque 316692 dated 10.08.2000 for Rs. 4,48,656/- The three cheques were presented for collection and the same were dishonoured and returned with the endorsement "insufficient funds". The appellant-complainant had issued first notice to the respondent(s) on 31.08.2009 demanding the repayment of the amount. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esentation is within the period of six months or the validity of the cheque whichever is earlier, the second or subsequent dishonour of the cheque would not entitle the holder/payee to issue a statutory notice to the drawer nor would it entitle him to institute legal proceedings against the drawer in the event he fails to arrange the payment. The correctness of the decision in Sadanandan's case was doubted and referred to the larger bench. 7. Three-Judge Bench of this Court in 2013 ((1) SCC 177 MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan and Another held that there is nothing in the provisions of Section 138 of the Act that forbids the holder of the Cheque to make successive presentation of the cheque and institute the criminal complaint based on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns recognized purposive interpretation as a sound principle for the courts to adopt while interpreting statutory provisions. We may only refer to the decision of this Court in New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CST reported in 1963(2) Suppl. SCR 459 = 1963 AIR 1207 wherein this Court observed: "8. ... It is a recognized rule of interpretation of statutes that the expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statue, and which effectuate the object of the legislature. If an expression is susceptible of narrow or technical meaning, as well as a popular meaning the court would be justified in assuming that the legislature used the expression in the sense which would ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ues were presented twice and notices were issued on 31.08.2009 and 25.01.2010. Applying the ratio of MSR Leathers (supra) the complaint filed based on the second statutory notice is not barred and the High Court, in our view, ought not to have quashed the criminal complaint and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s), inter alia, raised various points including, that :- (i) the cheques were not issued; (ii) that the amount payable is not legally enforceable debt and (iii) the person who issued cheques whether was in effective control of the management of the respondent(s). All the contentions raised by the respondent are refuted by the learned counsel for the appellant.....