IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NI ACT)-01, CENTRAL: ROOM NO.-275, TIS HAZARI COURT COMPLEX, DELHI Rajeev Goel Vs [ENTITY] CC No.1940/2010 25.02.2014 JUDGMENT
(Brief reasons for decision as required under [SECTION] [ACT].) Three different cases have been filed by the complainant on the basis of three dishonoured cheques. The story tried to be built by the complainant is that he had advanced a loan of Rs.3.5 lacs to the accused and in discharge thereof accused had issued the cheque of Rs.3.5 lacs on which the complainant filed the complaint case [CASE NUMBER]. Further complainant had also advanced another loan of Rs.3 lacs to the accused and in discharge of the said liability accused had issued a cheque of Rs.3 lacs upon which the complainant filed [CASE NUMBER]. Furthermore, the accused had purchased certain materials worth Rs.1,52,000/- from the complainant and in discharge thereof had issued a post dated cheque of Rs. 1,52,000/- upon which the complainant had filed the complaint case [CASE NUMBER].
2. The present case is based upon a cheque of Rs.3,50,000/- received in purported discharge of a friendly loan of the same amount. The cheque is dated 31/04/2007. I am of the view that there is no necessity to go into the details of entire controversy as the complaint can be decided on pure legal question.
2.1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] vs Gulshan Rai 1993 (4) SCC 424 has held as under:
"With effect from the date shown on the face of the said cheque it becomes a "cheque" under the Act and the provisions of [SECTION] would squarely be attracted."
2.2. Then a three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the concept in [PRECEDENT] with the following observation:
"For prosecuting a person for an offence under [SECTION] of the Act, it is inevitable that the cheque is presented to the banker within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. When a post dated cheque is written or drawn, it is only a bill of exchange and so long the same remains a bill of exchange, the provisions of [SECTION] are not applicable to the said instrument. The post-dated cheque becomes a cheque within the meaning of [SECTION] of the Act on the date which is written thereon and the 6 months period has to be reckoned for the purposes of [SECTION] of the Act from the said date. Thus while respectfully agreeing with the law laid down by this Court in the case of [ENTITY], we hold that six months period shall be reckoned from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque and not any earlier date on which the cheque was made over by the drawer to the drawee."
2.3. Similar was the position with the another three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]
3. One thing is very clear, there must be some date from which period of validity of cheque can be counted for the purpose of proviso-(a) to [SECTION] [ACT].
3.1. In the present case, the date is 31/04/2007. A clearly fictitious date having no existence in reality. This can not form a basis for counting any period.
3.2. [SECTION] [ACT] talks about bills drawn in fictitious name and prohibits the same from being treated as invalid merely for that reason. However, no provision has been brought to my notice which may validate a fictitious date.
4. The cheque in question having a non-existent date (31/04/2007) can not be treated as a valid cheque for the purpose of [SECTION] [ACT] and therefore a complaint can not be maintained on the basis of such cheque.
5. Accused [ENTITY] is acquitted from the charge in the present complaint case i.e.u/[SECTION] [ACT].
6. A copy of this order be placed on the web site of the district courts.
([ENTITY]) [ACT] 25.02.2014