TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') was dismissed and he was acquitted. 2. Facts in the background of the case are that the complainant Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') was dealing in supply of iron and steel to small scale industries. The respondent was also one of its dealers. On 27.2.1994. the respondent purchased material for a sum of Rs. 29,66,721/- against bill No. 10672 dated 27.2.1994. Out of the aforesaid amount, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 9,45,200/- against the current cheque dated 28.2.1994 and for the balance amount a post-dated cheque No. 765504 dated 23.3.1994 for a sum of Rs. 20,21,521/- was issued. On 23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 19.4.1994, then it gives a fresh cause of action to the complainant. 6. Before laying our hands to appreciate the real position, we need to reproduced some relevant dates. The cheque No. 765504 is dated 23.3.1994. It was tendered for payment on the due date which was dishonoured. A letter was issued by the complainant on 7.4.1994. then there is evidence that the respondent personally requested the complainant to present the cheque again on 19.4.1994. However, despite the cheque was presented on 19.4.1994, Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited. Naraina, New Delhi informed vide letter dated 21.4.1994 that the cheque was dishonoured for want of insufficient funds. The complainant issued notice to the respondent on 29.4.1994. Consequently, the compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque within three 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. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 8. On bare reading of provision of Section 138(b) and (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it comes out that to constitute an offence under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplaint as well as proved in his statement that on assurance made by the respondent to tender the cheque again, cheque was tendered. The variety of the circumstances may permit the complainant to tender the cheque for second time so as to file complaint on fresh cause of action. For example: (i) if the envelope addressed to the complainant is lost or damaged or destroyed in transit; (ii) the letter does not reach the respondent for want of correct address; (iii) the letter so posted is not received by the respondent is short of notice and it is blank; (iv) the letter so posted is not received by the actual addressee and the postage is stolen in transit; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir letter dated 20.6.1998. However, they while applying for quashing the complaint took the plea that the same was time barred as no cause of action was available to the complainant on tendering of the cheque for the second time. The Hon'ble High Court accepted the said plea of the respondents. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court while allowing the appeal, observed in para Nos. 10 and 11 of the judgment as under: 10. The High Court fell in error by not referring to the letter of the respondents dated 20th June, 1998 and quashing the proceedings merely by reading a line from para 6 of the complaint. The appellant in para 7 of their complaint had specifically stated that "Even though the complainant is not admittin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hin one month from 18/19.4.1994 is quite within lime. It may further be observed that the respondent is blowing hot and cold in the same breath. On one side, he is using the sword of letter dated 7.4.1994 but in the same breath he denied having received the notice dated 7.4.1994 Ex.D-1 in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., translation copy of which (the relevant part of statement of the respondent) reads as under: Q-3. That on 23.3.1994. the cheque was presented in the bunk, but the same was returned by the Bank of the accused firm on account of insufficient funds. In this regard, a notice was sent on 7.4.1994. Thereafter on the assurance given by the accused firm, the cheque was presented on 19.4.1994. But th....