Case: M/S.Sil Import Export Vs. M/S.Exim Aides Silk Exporters

How the above situation is reached can be summarised, thus:Respondent is a proprietary concern doing business in finished silk products by exporting them to foreign countries. Appellant is a company having its Headquarters in California (USA). Appellant has been placing orders with the respondent for exporting such silk materials. According to the respondent, appellant owed a sum of 72075U.S. dollars (equivalent to more than 26 lakhs of rupees) towards the sale, consideration of several consignments of materials dispatched to the appellant on the orders placed. Aftermuch correspondence and negotiations appellant Company issued some post-dated cheques on State Bank of India (California-ARTESIA Branch). Three of such cheques were presented on 3.5.1996 after those cheques attained maturity, for encashment through Bank of Madurai, Bangalore Branch. Two cheques were returned dishonoured with the reason4. On receipt of such intimation respondent sent a notice tothe appellant company byfax on 11.6.1996. On the next day the respondent sent the same notice by registered post also which was served on the appellant on 25.6.1996. On 8.8.1996 respondent filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in respect of cheque No. 188 dated 20.11.1995 (for 5998.40 US dollars) an another cheque No. 187 (with which the present appeal is not concerned). The Metropolitan Magistrate, after receiving the complaint on file took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the appellant. It was sought to be quashed for which the appellant filed a petition before the magistrate on various grounds. Learned Magistrate upheld some of the grounds urged by the appellant and dismissed the complaint discharging the accused by his order dated 20.11.1996.5. Respondent thereupon moved the High Court of Karnataka in revision against the aforesaid order of discharge. A single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order ofthe Metropolitan Magistrate and restored the complaint on file with a direction to proceed with the prosecution in respect of Cheque No. 188. It is the said order of the High Court which is now being challenged.

Court's reasoning:
23. The above view of this Court is in direct conflict with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in M/s. SKD Lakshmanan Fireworks Industries v.K.V. Sivarama Krishnan, 1995 Cr. Law Journal 1384. [In the headnote made in a volume of Supreme Court Cases which reported Sadanandan Bhadran (supra)] the Editor has noted thus: SKD Lakshmanan Fireworks Industries v. K. V. Sivarama Krishnan, (supra) is approved. This needs correction through a corrigendum because the dictum of the Full Bench in SKD Llakshmanan Fireworks Industries v. Sivarama Krishnan had been disapproved by this Court in Sadanandan Bhadrans case.24. The upshot of the discussion is, on the date when the notice sent by fax reached the drawer of the cheque the period of 15 days (within which he has to make the payment) has started running and on the expiry of that period the offence is completed unless the amount has been paid in the meanwhile. If no complaint was filed within one month therefrom the payee would stand forbidden from launching a prosecution, thereafter, due to the clear interdict contained in Section 142 of the Act.25. In this case the complainant has admitted the fact that written notice was sent by fax, Appellant has admitted its receipt on the same date. (It must be remembered that respondent has no case that fax has not reached the appellant on the same date.) The last day when the respondent could have filed the complaint was 26.7.1996. But the complaint was filed only on 8.8.1996 so the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence on the said complaint.