G VENKATARAMANAIAH Vs. SILLAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act r/w Section 420 IPC is pending against the petitioner before the learned Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur. The complaint is sought to be quashed on various grounds, some of them refer to the factual aspects of the matter which this Court will not entertain under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, two legal grounds have been taken which will be considered by this Court presently.

(2.) One of the grounds taken is that the complaint has been filed beyondtime. I have gone through the complaint. The cheque was allegedly issued on 6th March, 1998, it was presented to the banker within six months and it was returned on 9-3-1998 with the endorsement that the accused had closed his account as early as on 4-9-1997. Notice was issued to the accused on 26th March, 1998 for making the payment. Payment was not made and the complaint was made on 8th May, 1998. Since the notice was given on 26th March, 1998 the cause of action would accrue to the complainant on expiry of 15 days clear notice, because within 15 days the accused could make the payment. That would mean the complainant has to wait for taking further action till 10th April, 1998. From 11th April, 1998 onwards he could file the complaint and in terms of Section 142(b) of N.I. Act complaint has to be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c). In this case, the cause of action arose on llth April, 1998. The complaint has been filed on 8th May, 1998. Therefore, the complaint is filed within time and no interference is needed on this ground.

(3.) Second aspect of the matter is more important. It has been suggestedthat the cheque was not returned by the banker on account of insufficiency of funds but was returned on account of closure of the account. Since Section 138 of N.I. Act does not contemplate a situation where cheque is returned on account of closure of the account, no offence would be attributable to the accused as the cheque had not been returned for insufficiency of funds.