Kaleemulla vs Rajashekar Murthy

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

This petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the 18th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in CC No.25055/2015.

The brief facts essential for disposal of the petition are as follows: The respondent instituted the proceedings against the petitioner (accused) under Section 138 r/w.142 of N.I.Act, alleging that towards repayment of the amount borrowed by the petitioner, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 13.5.2015 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Basaveshwaranagar Branch, Bengluru to the respondent. The respondent/complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 13.8.2015. The cheque was returned dishonoured with an endorsement "account closed". After complying with the required formalities under the N.I.Act, the complainant presented the above petition, which came to be numbed as PCR No.12906/2015. After recording the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the petitioner. On entering appearance, the petitioner filed a memo contending that the cheque in question is dated 13.5.2015, whereas it was presented on 13.8.2015 beyond the period of 90 days contrary to the prescription contained in Section 138 of N.I. Act and also contrary to Regulation No.35-A of the Banking Regulations Act.

The learned Magistrate considering the objections of the petitioner and on hearing the parties, by the impugned order rejected the said memo by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Econ Antri Ltd. Vs. Rom Industries Ltd., reported in 2013(3) DCR 417, holding that the presentation of the cheque was within the period of three months as prescribed in Section 138 of NI Act.

The petitioner has urged the very same ground before this Court and has reiterated the very same contention. On going through the order and the preposition of law laid down in the case of Econ Antri Limited Vs. Rom Industries Ltd. (reported in 2013 (3) DCR 417), I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order. Undisputedly, the cheque in question is dated 13.5.2015. It is not in dispute that the said cheque was presented for encashment on 13.8.2015. Section 138(a) of N.I.Act requires the complainant to present the said cheque for encashment within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. Regarding computation of time for presentation of the cheque, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision has held that for the purpose of calculating the period of one month prescribed under Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose. The trial Court has properly applied this principle and has rightly held that the presentation of the cheque is within three months as prescribed in Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order.

For the foregoing reasons, petition is disposed of. All othSer contentions urged by the petitioner are kept open for consideration by the trial Court at the appropriate stage.