TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Station Kotwali, District-Banda, whereby learned Revisional Court set aside the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/ A.C.J.M., Banda in Complaint Case No.31/1/2008 (Shiv Narain Gupta Vs Laxmi Narain) convicting and sentencing the respondent no.2 with rigorous imprisonment for two years and with fine of Rs. 2000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that revisionist instituted a complaint case against the respondent no.2 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging therein that on 17.03.1996 respondents borrowed Rs. 40,000/- from the revisionist and against that amount, he gave a cheque dated 20.03.1996 of this amount to the revisionist. The aforesaid cheque was presented for payment in the bank, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial available on record rightfully. The cheque was not given by the respondents to the revisionist as collateral security against the amount borrowed by him while it was given to discharge of debt. Revisionist presented the cheque before Tulsi Gramin Bank on 12.08.1996 i.e. well within time, but it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of the fund in the account of the respondent. Upon receiving the information, revisionist served notice dated 16.08.1996 to the respondents. Respondent inspite of proper service of notice upon him, failed to comply the requirement as contained in the notice and did not pay the amount to the revisionist therefore, complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 was filed by the revisionist. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal court opined that complaint of the revisionist was time barred but erroneously it held that since respondent has not availed any legal remedy against the order of delay condonation, therefore, no benefit could be given to the respondents and assumed that the complaint of the revisionist was maintainable. Further it is submitted that cheque was given for collateral security of the amount borrowed by the respondents. 12. Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 reads thus:- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of the fact, it transpires that cheque was given by the revisionist to the respondent no.2 on 20.03.1996. The aforesaid cheque was presented for clearance in Tulsi Gramin Bank on 12.08.1996 i.e. within six months as provided under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After receiving the information from the Bank that cheque is not honoured due to in sufficient of the fund in the account of respondent no.2, the revisionist served a notice dated 16.08.1996 to the respondent no.2. The notice was given under the stipulated time as provided. But the complaint was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 08.10.1996 by the revisionist, which ought to have been filed within one month from the date on which cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been given benefit to the respondents-opposite party. 17. The proviso of Section 142(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was inserted by Act No. 55 of 2002, section 9 (w.e.f. 06.02.2003) as under:- "Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period" The provision made with insertion of the proviso empowers the Court to take cognizance of a complaint after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. 18. In Subodh S. Salaskar Versus Jay Prakash M. Shah and another (2008) 13 SC....