KAMBOJ GRAM UDYOG SAMITI Vs. DHILLON BRICKS WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant filed this revision against the order by which its complaint, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, came to be dismissed and accused were discharged by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla by order dated 15-5-1996.

(2.) The petitioner filed the complaint on the following allegations: On 11-9-1995 the accused issued in favour of the complainant a cheque for Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Branch Narangwal (Ludhiana). The complainant deposited that cheque with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Malerkotla for realisation. The sequence of events indicate that the Oriental Bank of Commerce in turn presented that cheque to the State Bank of Patiala Branch Narangwal (Ludhiana). The State Bank of Patiala returned that cheque with endorsement that cheque could not be honoured because the funds were insufficient. The papers indicate that State Bank of Patiala has sent such intimation to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Malerkotla from whom that cheque had been received by State Bank of Patiala for realisation. It further appears from papers that the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Malerkotla vide its letter dated 11-10-1995 informed the complainant that the cheque has been dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account. The complainant then sent a notice dated 18-10-1995 to the accused and called upon them to discharge their liability under the cheque. Since the accused did not pay any heed to that notice, the complainant filed a complaint on 2-12-1995, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla issued process against the accused.

(3.) The accused appeared and sought the dismissal of the complaint and their discharge on two grounds viz. (i) that the cheque had not been issued against the existing liability at the time of its issuance, and (ii) that the complainant had not complied with the time limit of issuance of notice within fifteen days since he received the intimation regarding the dishonour of the cheque. The trial Court held that the complainant has not spelt out a case that he fulfilled the requirement of clause (b) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which provides that the holder of the cheque should serve a notice within fifteen days of the receipt of the information regarding the dishonour of the cheque and call upon the drawer of the cheque to fulfil the obligation of payment. He was of the view that the complainant has not led satisfactory evidence to show on which date he received the intimation from the bank that the cheque had been dishonoured.