TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 989
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rson issued 7 number of cheques in favour of the complainant and gave the details of the same in the petition of complaint which were deposited on 25.11.2002 for encashment to its banker UBI, Park Street Branch but those cheques were dishonoured and returned unencashed with the ground 'exceeds arrangement' by return memo dated 26.11.2002. Such information of dishonour was intimated to the petitioner company by the banker on 28.11.2002, was duly communicated to the accused person by demand notice dated 04.12.2002 through the Senior Manager (Legal) of the complainant Company through registered post with A/D as well as Speed Post calling upon the accused to effect payment of the total amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice in default appropriate proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act will be initiated against him. The said demand notice was returned to the appellant with the remark "not known" on 07.12.2002 and it was received on 10.12.2002. 3. The complaint was lodged within a month from such date as the appellant apprehended that the aforesaid misdeed of accused person is deliberate, intentional and mala fide and with an ulterior motives to devoid the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorised officer filed a petition of complaint against the accused no. 1 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and such allegation was very brief which relates to issuance of seven post-dated cheques by the respondent in discharge of his debt and liability in existence within their maturity period and was presented for encashment by the appellant company, were dishonoured followed by service of demand notice by the appellant which was not complied with and hence it attracts the penal mischief of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The cognizance was taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and transferred before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta. The process was issued and the respondent entered appearance, pleaded not guilty and examined its witnesses and the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code and also examined himself as the lone defence witness. After hearing the parties the order of conviction was passed but the Learned Appellate court held that the demand notice issued in respect of the seven cheques including the invalid cheques was thus bad in law thereby p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Learned Advocates. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced before this Court by both the Learned Counsels, the question arose as to whether the judgement and order passed by the Learned Session Court acquitting the accused person after reversing the order of conviction passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence committed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is sustainable in the eye of law. 9. The factual matrix disclose that the complainant is a limited company and carries its business and the accused person is a private individual having his address as mentioned in the cause title. The following cheques were issued as alleged in the petition of complaint by the present appellant in discharge of existing liability and or legal debt in part. Which are as follows:- CHEQUE NO. DATE DRAWN ON AMOUNT 154064 26.05.2002 United Bank of India, Amtala, 24-Pgs-743503 Rs. 2,396/- 154065 26.06.2002 - do - Rs. 2,396/- 154066 26.07.2002 - do - Rs. 2,396/- 154067 26.08.2002 - do - Rs. 2,396/- 154068 26.09.2002 - do - Rs. 2,396/- 154069 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etition of complaint the nature of liability was not mentioned. He deposited all the seven cheques in the petition it was mentioned that all were deposited on 25.1.2002. He denied that he filed his case after lapse of 14 days from the date of receipt of return envelope on 07.12.2002 and 14.12.2002. 12. Mr. Pronab Kumar Pal P.W. 3 who was posted as an Officer in the UBI Amtala Branch deposed that the cheque leaves were issued from their bank. The seven cheques which were returned on 26.11.2002 revealed from his statement of those account and that on the ground of 'exceed arrangements' and one cheque dated 26.05.2002 has been stayed due to its expiry of validity period. He produces the three return memos which were issued on 26.11.2002. The respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he specifically stated that he gave post-dated cheques and admitted that his father was suffering from cancer and he could not pay the money. He denied to receive any notice and also denied the amount demanded of Rs. 55,000/- instead of Rs. 16,000/- but he admitted to have paid some money. He also stated that if he gets time he shall repay the money. Therefore prima facie it is admitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. In the demand notice the said cheque dated 26.05.2002 was clubbed with other six cheques to cover the cheque amount in single demand notice and the Learned Sessions Court was of the view that since the cheque deposited after expiry of the valid period was clubbed together in the demand notice with the other amount, same cannot be said to be a valid notice. In this regard relied upon the decisions where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the drawee present such encashment after six months in the bank on which the said Negotiable Instrument has been drawn and after that is dishonoured, the drawee has to blame himself for such delay and if such Negotiable Instrument is dishonoured the drawee cannot file a criminal complaint against the drawer on that count. 14. In Kaveri Plastics v Mahdoom Bawa Bahruden Noorul 2025 Live Law (SC) 9 it was clarified that a notice mentioning an amount different from the cheque amount, or failing to mention the cheque amount altogether, would be legally invalid. "A failure in above regard, namely when the cheque amount is not mentioned in the Proviso (b) notice or the amount different than the actual cheque amount is mentioned, in the notice, such....