Van Law Vena

Yogendra Pratap Singh vs Savitri Pandey

Nov 08, 20243 min read

Case Name : Yogendra Pratap Singh vs Savitri Pandey & Anr Case Reference: (2014) 10 SCC 713 : (2014) 12 SCR 26 Case Number: Criminal Appeal No 605/2012 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 03 Coram: RM Lodha (Author), Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman Date: 19.09.2014

Cognisance of an offence cannot be taken before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice to be served on the drawer. As mandated by [NI Act - Section 138] The three clauses of NI Act - Section 138 must necessarily be fulfilled.

To make out a case under 138, the following ingredients must be satisfied as explained in :

  1. A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability;
  2. that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
  3. that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
  4. the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
  5. the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.

On failure of compliance of the three clauses, the complainant must file a fresh complaint within the time prescribed under [NI Act - Section 142].k If out of time, the recourse lies within the proviso thereto, by proving sufficient cause to the court.

Refer also: Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd, AIR 2000 SC 954 - (2000) 2 SCC 745 Relied on by: Gajanand Burange vs Laxmi CHand Goyall, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682

See also: NI Act - Section 142 CrPC - Section 190

PDF: Yogendra Pratap Singh vs Savitri Pandey, (2014) 12 SCR 26.pdf

Graph View

Backlinks