At any rate the companyplaint filed on 11.4.1996 is beyond the time prescribed by law and companysequently the companyrt is debarred from taking companynizance of the offence upon the said companyplaint, companytended the appellants.
A cheque in a sum of Rs.
The stand of the appellants is this The cheque was earlier presented by the payee and then it was dishonoured by the Bank and thereafter a numberice was issued to the drawer on 1.12.1995, but the payee did number file a companyplaint within one month of the expiry of 15 days after the said numberice and hence he cannot create one more cause of action by presenting the cheque once again.
The said cheques were presented before the Oriental Bank of Commerce but they were dishonoured by the Bank as per memo dated 23.2.1996.
2001 3 SCR 985 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
But neither the trial companyrt number the High Court favoured the accused in his endeavour to secure a discharge from the case on the said ground.
Thus he has companye up with this appeal.
In support of the said companytention appellants cited the decisions of this Court in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhayan Sunil Kumar.
Notice was sent tb the appellants on 2.3.1996 calling upon them to pay the amount As the appellants did number pay the amount within the statutory period, a companyplaint was filed on 11.4.1996.
He thought that a previous numberice sent by the payee Of the cheque, after it was once bounced, was enough to knock off the prosecution based on a second presentation and second bouncing of the cheque.
The period, if calculated from the issue of numberice dated 12,3.1996, brings the companyplaint well within the period of limitation.
50 lacs and another cheque for above Rs, 3 lacs have been drawn by the first appellant in favour of the respondent companyplainant.
Respondent companypany filed a companyplaint before the companyrt of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against three appellants for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act for short the NI Act on the following inter alia, allegations The third appellant is the Managing Director of the first appellant companypany of which the second appellant is Vice President.
The drawer of a cheque clutches on a straw for wriggling out of the clinch of a criminal prosecution he is caught in, but the straw is too fragile to be of any help to him.
