TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The subject matter of the complaint is three cheques, drawn on Thiruvananthapuram Main Branch of the Indian Bank, bearing Nos. 428895 dated 02.09.2006, 428898 dated 22.09.2006 and 428899 dated 14.09.2006, all for Rs. 44,200/-. The complainant and accused are sea food merchants. According to the complainant, he collects raw sea food from the fishermen and sells to agents like the accused, who in turn sells the items to exporters. The subject cheques were issued at his house in connection with the fish trade, in discharge of liabilities outstanding from the accused. 2. The cheques were presented for collection through Maruthadi branch of the Central Bank of India. But it were returned unpaid on 05.10.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst respondent. 4. Relying on the decision reported in APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and Others [AIR 2020 SC 945], the learned counsel pointed out that even if the cheques were issued as security, the plea of innocence will not sustain so long as the first respondent has admitted that the cheques were issued by him. The learned counsel also pointed out that the appellant could prove the execution of the cheques and therefore, the statutory presumptions have to be drawn in favour of the appellant; the first respondent did not rebut the presumption. The learned counsel also argued that the first respondent did not send a reply to the lawyer notice nor did mount the box for the purpose of probabilising ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat Ext.P1 series cheques were obtained by him two years prior to the date of presentation. According to him, the cheques were handed over to him at the office of the first respondent. But in the complaint, it was stated that the cheques were issued at his residence. Similarly, there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the complaint and also the statement of the appellant as PW1, do not contain the particulars of the transaction. Whatever it may be, it is very evident from the admission of PW1 that the cheques were obtained two years prior to the date of presentation. 9. The three ingredients to attract the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are that there was a legally....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Moreover, the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stipulates that the following conditions should be complied with enabling the payee or the holder in due course to initiate action under the Act: a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months (prior to 01.04.2012 which is applicable in the present case) from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; b) A demand has been made by the payee by a registered notice within a period of thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank and c) The drawer fails to make the payment within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice. 12. Here it has come out in clear terms that ....