JAYASWALS NECO LIMITED Vs. ISHER ALLOY STEELS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 3-7-1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 190/98 quashing the order dated 6-7-1998 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , Raipur whereby a criminal case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was registered against the respondents on the basis of a complaint.

(2.) THERE was a business transaction between the parties and consequently the respondents issued a Cheque No. 2477086 dated 21-7-1997 for Rs. 10,00,000/ -. When the cheque was sent to the bank, it was dishonoured as its payment was stopped by the drawer. The petitioner gave a notice as required by law and ultimately filed a criminal complaint against them which was registered as per order dated 6-7-1998 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , Raipur in Criminal Case No. 464/98. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court. The learned Special Judge, Raipur by the impugned order dated 3-7-1999 in Criminal Case No. 190/98 quashed the order dated 6-7-1998 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 3-7-1999, passed by the learned Special Judge, Raipur, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) THE sole question for consideration before this Court is whether the cheque should be presented within six months before the drawer's bank or it can be presented before the drawer as well as the payee's bank. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the cheque should be presented within six months to the drawer's bank and since the cheque in question was not presented within six months to the drawer's bank, the order passed by the learned Special Judge is proper. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the cheque could have been presented either to the drawer's bank or to the payee's bank as per provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in law.