AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sat Pal, J.
(1) This petition has been filed against the order dated 2/12/1991 passed by Shri O.P. Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi .By this order the learned M.M. dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.
(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1had issued a cheque dated 24/07/1991 for Rs. 7,000.00 and the afore said cheque when presented on two occasions was dishonoured. Despite notice dated 30/09/1991 the amount of the cheque was not paid by the respondent to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent. The learned M.M. dismissed the complaint on the ground that the cheque at the first instance was dishonoured vide memo dated 12.8.91 and the limitation will start from the dishonouring of the cheque at the first instance. Since the notice was not issued within limitation from the dishonouring the cheque at the first instance, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
(3) Ms. Nisha Baghchi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned M.M was contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan v.K.M. Menon, Crl. M(M) 1282/92. The learned Counsel also submitted thata learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the case of A. Gopalakrishnan v. Neptune Inflatables Pvt. Ltd., in Crl. M.P. No. 18672/90, decided on 8.1.91, held that the only two limitations vide Chapter 17 of the Act imposed are that the cheque must be presented within six months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier and no other limitation can be imported. The learned Counsel further submitted that the aforesaid decision of Madras High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) 1474/91 titled as A. Gopalakrishnan v. Neptune Inflatables Pvt. Ltd., decided on 4/10/1991.
(4) In the case of Madan Mohan (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court relying on a judgment of Kerala High Court held that subject to the outer limit prescribed, there can be representation of the cheque and the cause of action for the complainant would arise only when pursuant to the dishonour, notice was issued and there was refusal/failure to pay. Since in the present case, the cheque was represented within six months and the notice was issued within 15 days from the dishonouring of the cheque on representation ,the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I set-aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned M.M.concerned to try it in accordance with law.
(5) With this order, the petition stands disposed of. Lower Court records be sent back.