P.K. SHUKLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges an order of conviction in proceedings, inter alia, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner urges two grounds : that the complaint was filed before the period of 15 days had elapsed from the date of receipt of the notice of dishonour by the petitioner; and that there was no debt or liability that the complainant had been able to demonstrate for a charge under section 138 of the said Act to be pressed against the petitioner.

(2.) THE complainant claimed that the cheque had been issued in the month of November, 2004 by way of a guarantee, assuring repayment of a loan obtained by another from the complainant. The cheque was dishonoured on February 15, 2006. Within the statutory period upon the complainant having knowledge of the dishonour, the notice of demand was issued on the petitioner herein on March 6, 2006 which the petitioner received on March 8, 2006. The complaint was filed on March 21, 2006, some 12 days after the date of receipt of the statutory notice and before the period covered by clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 of the said Act ran out.

(3.) THE petitioner has applied under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the appellate order. The petitioner says that it is plain to see that the offence had not been committed by the time that the complaint was lodged and the premature complaint deserved summary dismissal and, certainly, no conviction to be handed down to the petitioner. The petitioner says that the petitioner did not obtain any loan from the complainant, nor was it the complainant's case that the petitioner had obtained any loan from him and as such the primary ingredient of section 138 of the Act was missing in the complaint.