TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of depositing the penalty he had been directed to further undergo one month of additional sentence of imprisonment. 2. The said judgment as rendered by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, in the aforesaid criminal case was challenged by the revisionist in a Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2016 'Vasudev Singh vs. Narain Singh', whereby, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge too while dismissing the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2017 has affirmed the judgment of conviction as rendered against the present revisionist on 26.10.2016 in Criminal Case No. 24 of 2013 'Ganesh Singh vs. Vasudev Singh'. 3. This criminal revision was admitted on 04.05.2017 and today the matter is taken up for final adjudication. At the time of admitting the criminal revision the Court has passed a conditional order to the effect that subject to the condition the revisionist deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of one month from the date of the order, i.e. 04.05.2017, the effect and operation of the judgments of conviction was kept in abeyance. The amount thus deposited by the revisionist in compliance of interim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the revisionist, which was standing at the Bank of Baroda, Branch Khatima. The said cheques, which were thus issued by the present revisionist and said to have been presented by the complainant in a saving bank account, which was standing in him name in the Punjab National Bank, Khatima Branch, for its encashment on 13.02.2015, and ultimately by the Bank's information dated 14.02.2015, it was informed that the cheques thus deposited for encashment stood dishonoured on account of insufficiency in the balance amount standing in the account of the revisionist, against which the cheuqes have been drawn. 7. Consequent thereto, the complainant is said to have issue notice on 09.03.2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which admittedly stood served on the present revisionist, the notice thus issued by complainant was on account of the dishonour of the cheques by the Banks as informed by the notice dated 14.02.2015. 8. The first contention of the revisionist is that the notice of the complainant dated 09.03.2015 does not fulfill the condition as provided under the proviso 'b' to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The provision contained u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the revisionist is that the notice dated 09.03.2015 issued by the complainant only contained 7 days' time period, which was provided to the revisionist to pay the amount in compliance of the provisions contained under proviso 'c' to Section 138, is absolutely a misconception, which has been drawn by the revisionist attracting the implications of the proviso 'b' of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act for the purposes of complying the conditions of the proviso 'c' to Section 138. Both the proviso had been legislated to meet the different intention and purposes to be complied prior to initiation of proceedings by registering the complaint. 11. Both the provisos are independent to one another. The intention and purpose of the proviso 'b' is only a liability or the limitation, which has been imposed and casted upon the complainant for filing the complaint on the receipt of information from the Bank of the dishonour of cheque. Hence, the 30 days' period would start running against him, i.e. the complainant, immediately after the receipt of notice issued by the Bank, its not for the purposes of fulfilling the conditions of provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'c' to the proviso to Section 138 will not be attracted in the instant case. Consequently, the said argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is turned down and is not accepted by this Court. Thus, the first question raised by the revisionist is answered accordingly. 13. The second argument, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the revisionist is to the effect that the complaint, which was instituted by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, is concerned, it did not refer the amount claimed by the complainant in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said argument as extended by the learned counsel for the revisionist is also not accepted for the reason being that if the complaint itself, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 505 of 2015 'Ganesh Singh vs. Vasudev Singh' is scrutinized in its totality, particularly the reference made in paragraph 6 of the said complaint, as well as in the relief clause the complainant in his complaint dated 03.04.2015 had specifically mentioned the amount sought to be claimed, which was an amount for which the cheque was issued as detailed in paragraph....