2003 (3) TMI 776

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 'the Act') against the applicant/accused Bapulal. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the accused issue a cheque bearing No. 011016, dated 8-11-99 for a sum of Rs. 21,060/- in the name of complainant Krapachand on Union Bank of India, Shajapur Branch with a request to get it encashed after five months. The complainant/N.A. presented the said cheque to the Bank for encashment on 3-5-2000, but on account of shortage of funds in the account of the accused/applicant, the said cheque returned dishonoured. On 4-5-2000, the complainant informed the accused about dishonour of the cheque by Registered Post and demanded payment of money within five days. On 8-5-2000, the complainant lodged the complaint under Section 138 of the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....000. On the same day, the complainant received information of dishonour of cheque. Therefore, he issued notice on 4-5-2000, but without waiting for statutory period of 15 days, as per provision under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act, filed a complaint on 8-5-2000 though on that date, cause of action did not arise. Therefore, the complaint was premature and liable to be dismissed. She supported the order of dismissal by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 6-7-2001. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non- applicant/complainant supported the order passed by the Revisional Court on the strength of recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Narsinghdas Tapadia v. Goverdhandas (AIR 2000 SC 2946) and S....