ANIL KUMAR SAWHNEY Vs. GULSHAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) ANIL Kumar Sawhney filed three complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamal alleging that Gulshan Rai, the accused therein had committed an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 1988 (for short the Act). The learned Magistrate issued summons in each of the three complaints to Gulshan Rai for his appearance in the said proceedings. Gulshan Rai challenged the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482, CrPC. Learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the proceedings on the short ground that the cheques in dispute 1Jeing post -dated cheques, the provision of section 138 of the Act were not attracted and, as such, no offence was made out on the admitted facts of the criminal complaints. These appeals by way of special leave petitions are by Anil Kumar Sawhney against the order of the High Court.

(3.) THE main contention raised by the respondent before the High Court was that the cheques in dispute were drawn in March 1990 when those cheques were written and made. The dates written on those cheques, which were post -dated cheques, are not the dates when the cheques were drawn. According to the respondent, since the cheques were drawn in March 1990 and those were presented before the bankers in the year 1991, the cheques had been presented to the bank beyond the period of six months from the date on which those were drawn and as such no offence was made out under section 138 (a) of the Act.