LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-247

S&S INDUSTRIES AND ENTERPRISES LIMITED REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. AGRI DEVELOPMENT FINANCE (TAMIL NADU) LIMITED

Decided On July 14, 2003
SAndS Industries And Enterprises Limited Rep By Its Managing Director Appellant
V/S
Agri Development Finance (Tamil Nadu) Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners praying to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 4165 of 1999 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai - 15 on certain grounds such as that the respondent had presented the cheque dated 04.08.1998 and the same on presentation was allegedly returned unpaid on 10.08.98; that a demand notice dated 24.08.1998 was issued by registered post on 25.8.98, demanding payment for the said dishonored cheque and the same was received by the petitioner on 27.8.98; that the respondent gave 15 days notice for the due repayment and hence the complaint ought to have been filed within one month thereafter i.e. on or before 12.10.98; that however the respondent once again presented the cheque on 16.11.98 and the same was allegedly returned unpaid on the same day itself and on 18.11.98, the respondent issued a notice demanding payment for the said dishonored cheque; that this was received by the petitioners on 24.11.98 and the complaint was presented somewhere during January 1999.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent as well.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is well settled as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1998 page 3043 that a cheque can be presented any number of times within its validity regarding which there is no controversy. But for a case to be made out under Section 138 of N.I. Act, once notice is given, the time limit prescribed by the Negotiable Instrument Act will come into operation; that in this view, the notice having been issued on 24.08.1998 and received on 27.8.98, the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 12.10.98, whereas the complaint was filed only during January 1999 based on the 2nd demand notice issued by the respondent. Hence, the complaint is thus barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed.