LexRAMESHCHANDRA AMBALAL JOSHI versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 1 S.C.R 1112 RAMESHCHANDRA AMBALAL JOSHI V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 2014) FEBRUARY 18, 2014. [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881: s.138, proviso(a) - Dishonour of cheque - Presentation of cheque "within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn" - Connotation of - Held: The word "month" has been defined u/s 3(35) of the General Clauses Act to 0 mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar. Accordingly, the period of six months cannot be calculated on 30 days in a month basis -- Once the word 'from' is used for the purpose of commencement of time, in view of s. 9 of the General Clauses Act, the day on which the cheque is drawn has to be excluded - Cheque drawn on 31.12.2005 and E presented on 30.6.2006 was presented within the period prescribed - Therefore, prosecution is not time barred - General Clauses Act, 1897 - ss.3(35) and 9. WORDS AND PHRASES: F Words, 'from' and 'month' as occurring in s.138(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Connotation of · The instant appeal arose out of the criminal proceedings initiated uls 138 of the Negotiable G Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of a cheque drawn on 31.12.2005 and presented for payment on 30.6.2006. The accused-appellant filed before the trial court an application for discharge contending that as the period H 1112 RAMESHCHANDRA AMBALAL JOSHI v. STATE OF 1113 GUJARAT of six months had lapsed between the date of drawl of A the cheque and its presentation, the accused-appellant could not be prosecuted. The application was rejected. The criminal revision of the accused-appellant before the Court of Session and his petition u/s 4823 Cr.P.C. before the High Court were also dismissed. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is apparent from a plain reading of proviso (a) to s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the Section would apply only when the cheque C is presented to the Bank within a period of s'ix months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. [Para 7] [1117-E-F] 1.2 The word "month" has been defined u/s 3(35) of D the General Clauses Act to mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar. Accordingly, the period of six months cannot be calculated on 30 days in a month basis. [para 15] [1121-D-E] 1.3 Proviso (a) to s. 138 of the Act uses the E expression "six months. from the date on which it is drawn". Once the word 'from' is used for the purpose of commencement of time, in view of s. 9 of the General Clauses Act, the day on which the cheque is drawn has to be excluded. Thus, six months would expire one day F prior to the date in the corresponding month and in case no such day falls, the last day of the immediate previous month. Therefore, for all purposes, the date on which the cheque was drawn, i.e., 31.12.2005 will be excluded and the period of six months will be reckoned from the next G day i.e. from 1.1.2006, as according to the British calendar, the period of six months will expire at the end of the 30th day of June, 2006. Since the cheque was presented on 30.6.2006, it was presented within the period prescribed. Therefore, the prosecution is not time barred and cannot H 1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 1 S.C.R. A be scuttled at this stage on this ground. [para 21, 26 and 27) [1123-8-C; 1126-8-E] Haru Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal, 1972 (3) SCR 329 = (1972) 1 SCC 639; Saketh India Ltd. V. India Securities B Ltd. 1999 (1) SCR 963 = (1999) 3 SCC 1; Sivakumar vs. Natarajan 2009 (9) SCR 386 = (2009) 13 SCC 623; Econ Antri Ltd. Vs. Rom Industries Ltd. & Anr. AIR 2013 SC 3283 - relied on. K. V. Muhammed Kunhi vs. P. Janardhanan [1998 c CRL.L.J. 4330) - held in applicable. Halsbury's Law of England, Vol. 37, 3rd Edn., Paragraph 143 at Pages 83-84 - referred to. Case Law Reference: D [1998 CRL.L.J. 4330) held in applicable para 9 2009 (9) SCR 386 relied on para 10 1999 (1) SCR 963 relied on para 23 E AIR 2013 SC 3283 relied on para 24 1972 (3) SCR 329 relied on para 27 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal F No. 434 of 2014. G H From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2010 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Application No. 2226 of 2009. V. Giri (A.C.), Huzefa Ahmadi, Anunaya Mehta, Mohd. Sadique T.A., E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.