TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egotiable Instruments Act, as against the present revisionist had convicted the revisionist to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment and a penalty of Rs. 1,85,000/- has been imposed upon him. Out of the aforesaid amount of penalty a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been directed to be remitted to the State coffers by depositing in the State's treasury. In an event of failure to comply with the said condition 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt. Be that as it may, as the said objection of conditional order dated 04.05.2017 will not have much bearing on the final adjudication of the present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has confined his argument from the two perspectives: (i) that the basic inception of the proceedings itself under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, happens to be defective on account of the fact that the time period as mentioned in the notice, was not providing a sufficient statutory time period as given in the statute to comply with the conditions given therein and (ii) secondly, the complaint was defective for the reason being that the total amount claimed therein in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ency 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 under the proviso 'b' to Section 138 of the Negoti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as provide therein in proviso (b) of Section 138, it is for the complainant for registering the complaint, which is a condition precedent that it should be done only after issuing a prior notice within 30 days from date of intimation from Bank. The provisions contained under the proviso (b) do not contemplate anywhere that it was the revisionist, who was required to be provided with the stipulated time frame as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be mentioned in the notice for the purposes of complying his conditions of payment contemplated under proviso 'c' to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the interpretation given to proviso (b) by the revisionist is absolutely not tenable in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which has to be mentioned in the notice issued by the complainant to the revisionist for complying with the conditions under the proviso 'c' to Section 138 as a condition precedent for filing of complaint provided in proviso 'b'. The proviso 'c' to Section 138 it only provides that as soon as the notices are received by the accused the conditions contained therein has to be complied with by the revisionist within period of 15 days from the date of its receipt, i.e. the notice. As per the finding, which has been recorded therein, admittedly the notice issued by the complainant was on 09.03.2015, which has been apparently shown to have been served upon the revisionist and thereafter the proceedings, which was initiated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 ....