KOOSHY TITUS Vs. CRYSTAL BISCUITS INDIA PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution initiated by the appellant/complainant alleging the offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the first respondent ended in acquittal. Therefore this appeal. Acquittal was only on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the period of one month after the cause of action had arisen. It is submitted that the finding of the Court below that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation is not justified. The appellant, in order to substantiate his case relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Central Bank of India v. M/s. Saxons Farms ( 1999 (3) KLT 484 (SC)) and of the Delhi High Court in Padmini Polymers v. Unit Trust of India ( 2003 (3) KLT SN 8 Case No. 10).

(2.) On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the accused that, when admittedly there were two notices issued by the complainant/appellant, it was up to the complainant to prove that the first notice did not contain any demand and was not a notice in terms of S.138(b). In the absence of such proof, there is no justification to interfere with the acquittal, the counsel submits.

(3.) The facts frame of the case on hand as follows. The accused issued a cheque Ext. P1. It was presented to the bank on 9.9.1996. It was dishonoured with the endorsement funds insufficient. A notice was issued. There upon the accused assured payment. The assurance was not honoured. Again the cheque was presented on 28.10.1996. It bounced on the same reason, as revealed by memo dated 8.11.1996. Thereupon a notice was again issued. Though there was a reply the matter was not settled. So a complaint was filed within time. The first notice issued was not one demanding repayment of the amount covered by the cheque.