LexPAWAN KUMAR RALLI versus MANINDER SINGH NARULA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 7 S.C.R. 1047 PAWAN KUMAR RALLI v. MANINDER SINGH NARULA . (Criminal Appeal No. 1684 of 2014) AUGUST 11, 2014 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881: A B s. 138 (b) - 'Notice' - Court's power to condone delay in c filing a complaint uls 138 - Dishonour of cheque ..:.. Hand written note sent by complainant to accused calling upon him to make the payment - Subsequently a formal legal notice issued by complainant - Held: The handwritten note was issued within the mandatory period of thirty days of dishonour 0 of cheques and fulfilled the mandatory requirements under clause (b) of proviso to s. 138 - Therefore, High Court committed no error in considering the handwritten note as 'notice' u/s 138. s.142(b}, proviso r/w s.138 - Condonation of delay in E filing complaint u/s 138 - Held: Respondent did. not raise th£! issue of limitation before that court and the question of the said court exercising the discretion to condone the delay did not arise at all - Respondent has not suffered any prejudice by reason of 25 days delay ·- Therefore, appellant should F not have been deprived of the remedy provided by Legislature - When the issue of limitation came up for the first time before High Court, it ought to have dealt with the same on merits as per proviso to· s.142(b), which confers jurisdiction upon court to condone the delay - High Court committed an G error in quashing the complaint -·It ought to have remanded the matter to trial court for deciding the issue of limitation ...:. Accordingly, in order to meet the ends of justice, in exercise of discretion under Art. 142 of the Constitutio17, impugned 1047 H 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R. A judgment of High Court is set aside - Criminal proceedings before trial court are restored - Appellant is permitted to file before trial court an application for condonation of delay, which shall be considered on its own merits - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 142. B s.142(b), proviso (as inserted by Amendment Act, 2002) - Legislative intent of - Explained. In a case of dishonour of cheques dated 25.4.2012, the appellant issued a hand written notice dated 27.4.2012 C to the respondent calling upon him to make the payment. Subsequently, a formal legal notice dated 24.5.2012 was issued uls 1381142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent denied the claim put forth in the said notice. Consequently, the appellant filed a complaint D against the respondent for offences ulss 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and s. 420 IPC. The trial court took cognizance and issued summons to the respondent, who contested the case and during the 'pendency of the proceedings filed a E petition uls 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking to quash the complaint on the ground that it was filed with 25 days delay. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent holding that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation from F the notice dated 27.4.2012. In the instant appeal filed by the complainant, the questions for consideration of the Court were as follows: • (a) Whether the handwritten note sent by the G appellant on 27.4.2012 to the respondent could be treated as 'notice' or the notice issued by the advocate on 24.5.2012 could only be treated as 'notice' within the meaning of s. 138 of the Act? H PAWAN KUMAR RALLI v. MANINDER SINGH 1049 (b) (c) NARULA If there was any delay in filing the complaint, A whether such delay could have been condoned by the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act? Whether the High Court was right in quashing 8 the criminal proceedings on the ground of limitation or instead of quashing the criminal proceedings it ought to have remitted the matter back to the trial court for deciding the issue of limitation? c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The handwritten note dated 27 .4. 2012 was issued within the mandatory period of thirty days of dishonour of cheques and it fulfilled the mandatory D requirements under clause (b) of proviso to s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Therefore, the High Court has committed no error in considering the handwritten note dated 27.4.2012 as 'notice' uls 138 of the Act. [para 19] [1060-G-H; 1061-A] Central Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Saxons Farms & Ors. 1999 Suppl. (3) SCR 534 = (
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.