CIVIL APPEAL 693 of 2001 on 9 October 1995

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 693 of 2001

Date of decision: February 26, 2009Santokh Singh

... Petitioner

versus

Naresh Kumar

... Respondent

Coram:Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. JindalPresent:Mr. H.S. Bhuller, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J.

This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated16.2.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing theappeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as “the petitioner”), againstthe judgment dated 17.10.1997, convicting and sentencing him to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In nutshell, the facts as unfolded by the complainant are that hewas the sole Proprietor of the firm M/s Chawla Trading Company, ShahpurKandi, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and was holder of the cheque inquestion in due course. The respondent had purchased the cement worthRs.53,275/- and in order to discharge his liability, he had issued a chequebearing No.752671 dated 5.8.1995, drawn on State Bank of India, BungalBranch, Tehsil Pathankot for a sum of Rs.23,275/- from his accountNo.7966. The said cheque was presented on 9.10.1995 which wasdishonoured on 11.10.1995, resultantly the complaint was filed on22.11.1995.

After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned and issued notice to which he pleaded not guilty and claimedtrial.

During evidence, the complainant had examined V.K. Raina,Accountant State Bank of India Bungal Branch (PW1), R.S. PathaniaTypist-Clerk (PW2) and he himself appeared as PW-3.

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while countering theallegations, he admitted having purchased the cement from the complainant.However, he explained that the payment was made by him in cash. Whileadmitting the issuance of the cheque, he disclosed that the cheque wasissued as security before getting the delivery of the cement, but the samewas misused by the complainant. He also denied if he had received notice.However, he denies his signatures on the acknowledgment (Ex.P6). Hefurther disclosed that he had given a blank cheque to the complainant butthe amount was filled by the complainant. He further stated that the he hadmade payment in the presence of Bittu and that the complaint was false.

The trial ended in conviction and his appeal also failed. Hencethis petition.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

The only question raised before me is that the cheque waspresented on 9.10.1995 and was dishonoured on 11.10.1995 and complaintwas filed on 22.11.1995, therefore, the complaint having been filed on20.11.1995 is not within limitation.

In this regard, it may be observed that after the cheque wasdishonoured on 11.10.1995, notice was issued within time i.e. 19.10.1995.The limitation to file the complaint could commence from the date of service of notice. In all probabilities, notice must have been served within3-4 days, therefore, the complaint having been filed within one monththereafter i.e. on 22.11.1995 cannot be said to be time barred. Evenaccording to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, a time of 30 days couldbe treated as reasonable for service of notice and if the notice has beendispatched on the correct address then it would be presumed that the samehas been received by the addressee. It has further been informed to me thatthe petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence.

No other argument has been raised.

Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, no such defect,irregularity or illegality rendering miscarriage of justice has been pointedout or detected, therefore, no interference is called for.

Consequently, the instant petition being unmerited is dismissed.

February 26, 2008deepak

(A.N. Jindal)Judge