w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



HINDUSTAN POWER CONTROLS, TARNAKA VERSUS SWARNA SYSTEMS, AMEERPET

    Criminal Petition 914 Of 1999

    Decided On, 24 February 1999

    At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI

    For the Appearing Parties: Narayana Rao, Advocates.



Judgment Text

BILAL NAZKI, J.


(1) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The proceedings under sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been initiated against the petitioner and are pending in C. C. No. 137 of 1997 before the Magistrate. It appears from the allegations in the complaint that the accused had given four cheques to the complainant which were presented by the complainant on the same day before the Bank and which were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. On the same day a composite notice for all the four cheques was given by the complainant to the accused. It is not disputed that the notice was received by the accused-petitioners. It is also not disputed that within the time granted under Section 138 of the Act, the payment was not made. It is also not disputed that within the time prescribed under the Act, the complaint was filed. The only ground raised and the only ground agitated for quashing the proceedings is that under Section 138 of the Act, a composite notice for bouncing of four cheques could have been given, as according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the mandate of Section 138 of the Act is that the accused should get at least 15 days for each cheque to make the payment after a notice is given to him. A novel argument has been made that had four separate notices were given to him, he would have got 60 days time to make the payment, therefore he was prejudiced. If the complainant had given four separate notices on the same day with respect to the four cheques, still the accused would only get 15 days time for making the payment. Although it is true that Section 138 of the Act refers only to a cheque and not to cheques, but there is nothing in Section 138 of the Act to show that if the parties are the same and cheques are bounced on the same day a composite notice cannot be given and if such composite notice is given, as is given in this case, no prejudice at all is caused to the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

accused who had 15 days time for making payment for each cheque that is all what is guaranteed under Section 138 of the Act. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition, it is accordingly dismissed.
O R