ANIL K MEHRA Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Misc. Nos. 11514-M, 13633-M and 13635-M of 1990 shall also be disposed of along with this miscellaneous petition (No. 13631-M of 1990), as these involve the sate controversy inter partes.

(2.) The main controversy involved in these petitions is whether the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') figuring in Chapter XVII, substituted vide Act 66 of 1983, which came into force w.e.f. 1/04/1989, would be deemed to have been committed on the day of draw in a cheque or on the date of dishonouring of a cheque on account of lack of sufficient funds in the accounts of the drawer as that exceeds the amount range to be paid from that account.

(3.) The brief re'sume' of facts relevant or the disposal of this petition is that Anil Kumar Mehra, Raj Kumar Mehra and Krishan Kumar Mehra accused are the partners of the firm Messrs Mehra Enterprises. This firm took loan from Hans Raj, complainant and, Anil Kumar Mehra accused- petitioner issued ten cheques for Rs. 1033.33 each in favour of Hans Raj, complainant drawn on the Central Bank of India, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. Two other cheques were also issued by him, but these are not relevant in this case as the validity period had already expired before filing the complaint. The complainant presented all these ten cheques to the Bank for their eacashment on 11-4-1989, but all these cheques were received back on 17-4-1989 with remarks "Exceeds arrangement" vide Bank memo) dated 12-4-1989. The complainant then issued notice dated 20-4-1989 calling upon the firm of the accused to pay the amount of the cheques within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The accused-firm received the notice on 22-4-1989, but instead of paying the amount, gave reply dated 29-4-1989 through their counsel disputing its criminal liability under S. 138 of the Act, which resulted in filing the complaint in the Court. The trial Court vide order dated 10-8-1989 summoned the accused-petitioners to face trial for the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Act. The petitioners then went in revision against that order, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, by holding that the provisions of S. 138 are prima facie attracted to the facts of the present case as the cheques were dishonoured after coming into force, the above referred provisions. Under these circumstances, the accused-petitioners had knocked the doors of this Court under the provisions of S. 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint and orders of the above referred two lower Courts.