SARAWARAYA TEXTILES LIMITED Vs. INTEGRATED FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 8417 of 1999 pending on the file of the learned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. THEy seek to quash the proceedings pending against them for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. THE complainant/respondent is a public limited company and a non-banking financial institution and carrying on business in extending financial facility to its customers. THE first accused entered into a lease agreement with the complainant on March 24, 1992 for Rs. 66, 61, 267 but committed default in payment of lease rentals. Later on, at the request of the first accused Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd. the said lease facility was converted into a bill discounting facility and an agreement for bill discounting facility was entered into between the complainant and the first accused on November 30, 1994, for Rs. 1, 20, 00, 000 and adjusted the said amount towards the amount due under the lease agreement.

(2.) SINCE the first accused committed default in payment, an agreement dated December 31, 1996 was entered into among the complainant, the first accused and the third accused. In the said agreement, the first accused agreed to pay Rs. 1, 79, 22, 192 to the complainant and to discharge part of the amount due under the said agreement, the first accused issued a cheque dated March 30, 1997, drawn on Indian Bank, Commander-in-Chief Road, Chennai, for a sum of Rs. 1, 48, 00, 000.

(3.) LEARNED counsel also argues that the provisions under section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable to the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act especially because of the non obstante clause available in section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on a ruling of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of P. P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty 2000 SCC(Crl) 1460 wherein it has been said that the extension of the period contemplated in section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code is only by way of an exception to the period fixed as per the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code and section 473 of the Code therefore cannot operate in respect of any period of limitation prescribed under any other enactment.