TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 28.12.1996, 120465 dated 19.12.1996 and 120466 dated 24.12.1996, respectively, amounting to Rs.25,000/- each to the complainant. The complainant deposited the cheque nos. 120467 and 120468 both dated 28.12.1996 with the State Bank of India, P.O. & P.S. - Tarakeswar, District - Hooghly for clearance but both the cheques were dishonoured by the concerned Bank on 07.03.1997 with the remark 'Refer to Drawer'. Thereafter, the complainant presented remaining two cheques bearing nos. 120465 dated 19.12.1996 and 120466 dated 24.12.1996 to the State Bank of India, Tarakeswar Branch for encashment but the said two cheques also were not honoured on the ground of "payment stopped" by the drawer on 08.04.1997. The complainant then, sent a notice to the accused through his Advocate Shri Probhat Kumar Bag by registered post with A.D., on 15.04.1997 and the accused after receiving that notice dated 15.04. 1997 sent a reply dated 21.04.1997 to the lawyer of the complainant through his Advocate Sri Madan Chandra Saha, denying the material allegations in the notice. As the accused did not make payment covered by the cheques, the complainant filed the instant complaint in the Court of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on him before filing of the present complaint. Evidence on record The complainant has examined himself as PW-1. This witness has stated that in the year 1995-1996 he did business of Rs. Sixty Lakhs with the accused but no document to that effect could be filed. The accused admitted the case of the complainant that the cheques in question, four in number, were issued by him in favour of the complainant. The contention of the accused is that he issued the cheques for purchasing potato but no attempt was made on behalf of the accused to prove the said case. It is also stated that all the cheques were deposited for encashment but the payment could not be made by the Bank. In respect of two cheques, endorsement of the Bank was 'Refer to Drawer' on 07.03.1997 and in respect of other two cheques the endorsement of the Bank was 'Stop Payment' on 08.04.1997. It is further stated that as four cheques were dishonoured, he issued notice by registered post with Acknowledgement Due requiring the accused to make payment on 15.04.1997. The complainant has filed the postal receipt which shows that notice was sent to the accused through registered post but the A.D. Card has not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [two] years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. A cheque is commonly used and post-dated cheques are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice dated 15.04.1997 was definitely not within the statutory period. Thus the notice is bad in respect of these two cheques. In respect of the cheques which were dishonoured on 08.04.1997. The notice dated 15.04.1997 was sent well within the statutory period. It is also seen from the notice that only a period of seven days was given for making the payment, whereas in a statutory notice as per requirement of Section 138(c) of the N.I. Act, demanding payment of amount, at least 15 days should be given, which was not done in the present case (as seen from the photocopy of reply dated 21.04.1997 and not denied by the complainant) and the Trial Court thus rightly held that the said notice in that respect is against the provision of Section 138(b)(c) of the N.I. Act, though it is seen that the complaint was filed after the period of 15 days but within 30 days. Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act 1881:- "The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank rega....