TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,25,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Saket, New Delhi. 3. He submitted that the aforesaid cheque was presented for encashment by the respondent on 17.04.2017, which was beyond the period of its validity. He has referred to the RBI notification NO.(RBI/2011-12)/251 dated 04.11.2011 whereby in exercise of power conferred under Section 35A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, the Reserve Bank directed that with effect from April, 1, 2012, Banks should not make payments of cheque/drafts/pay orders/banker's cheques bearing that date or any subsequent date, if they are presented beyond the period of three months from the date of such instrument. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even otherwise the aforesaid cheque wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused". 7. Admittedly, the cheque was presented to the draw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of a complaint to which we have already referred in the earlier part of this order. None of these prerequisites is in itself sufficient to constitute a complete cause of action for an offence under Section 138. For instance if a cheque is not presented within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier, no cause of action would accrue to the holder of the cheque even when the remaining two requirements, namely service of a notice and failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount are established on facts......" 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly not disputed the aforesaid legal position, though he urged that all such issues could be c....