Jagmohan Sood vs Akhil Mahindru

Surinder Singh, J.—The Respondent was acquitted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, as such, the instant application for leave to appeal has been moved. Record of the learned trial Court was called for and perused.

Heard and gone through the record. As CW3 the complainant, the applicant herein, testified during the trial of the case that the Respondent had purchased various articles from his shop to the tune of Rs. one lac, to run the shop near Sabzi Mandi, which was later closed. In order to discharge the liability, he issued the cheque Ext.CW3/A to the tune of Rs. one lac on 7th October, 2004 drawn in Bank of India. The complainant presented the cheque to the said bank on 19.11.2004 but it returned back for want of funds. Again, he presented the cheque, it met with the same fate. The complainant had received the memos from the concerned Bank, which are proved on record as Ext.CW2/A and Ext.CW2/B.

When on the second time, the cheque was dishonored, the complainant issued the notice Ext.CW3/B to the Respondent, which was sent through registered post. The notice was stated to have been received but the payment was not made. The complaint was failed against the Respondent on 11th March, 2005. It is alleged that he was also stopped on account of eye operation during the year 2005, hence the delay was there in filing the appeal. But when examined in the Court this fact has not been substantiated by him. On this score, he stands impeached.

It is also evident from the record that the complainant did not produce in evidence any ledger or account books to substantiate his plea that the Respondent had been taking articles from his shop, as alleged. The very foundation of his claim also stand shaken that the Respondent had the debt liability to discharge.

After receiving the memos from the Bank, the notice was allegedly issued by the complainant on 27.12.2004 by registered post, which was to be delivered locally and it can be simply assumed that it would have been served upon the Respondent on 29th December 2004 i.e. within two days. The Respondent was required to make the payment within 15 days from the receipt thereof, i.e. on or before 13th January, 2005, failing which it was open and permissible to the complainant to file the complaint within 30 days thereof i.e. to 13th February 2005 but in turn the complaint was filed on 11th March 2005 which went out limitation and stood clearly barred. The learned trial Court had also taken the cognizance of these facts and rightly held that the complaint filed by the Jagmohan Sood was barred by limitation. Therefore, in these circumstances, leave to appeal cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition is rejected and appeal stands dismissed.