[align=left][font=""trebuchet ms""]2007 (3) KLT 77 (SC)
2007 (3) ILR Kerala 203[/font]
[/align]
[align=left][font=""trebuchet ms""]The Supreme Court of India[/font][/align]
[align=left][font=""trebuchet ms""]C.C. Alavi Haji Versus Palapetty Muhammed & Another[/font][/align]
[align=left][font=""trebuchet ms""]Appeal (crl.) 767 of 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3910 of 2006)[/font][/align]
[align=left][font=""trebuchet ms""]Date of Judgment : 18-05-2007[/font][/align]
[align=left][font=""trebuchet ms""]THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN & HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN[/font][/align]
[align=left][font=""trebuchet ms""]Where the payee dispatches the notice by registered post with correct address of the drawer of the cheque, the principle incorporated in Section 27 of the G.C. Act would be attracted; the requirement of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act stands complied with and cause of action to file a complaint arises on the expiry of the period prescribed in Clause (c) of the said proviso for payment by the drawer of the cheque. Nevertheless, it would be without prejudice to the right of the drawer to show that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address.
Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
[/align][/font]
2007 (2) KLT 1030 (SC)
2007 (3) CTC 495
Supreme Court of India
[font=verdana]N. Rangachari Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Criminal Appeal No.592 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 1844 of 2006)
Date of Judgment : 19-04-2007
[/font][font=verdana]THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN CHATTERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
[/font][font=verdana]Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - [color=#000066]NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT[/color], 1881 ΓÇô Section [color=#000066]138[/color], 141 -An advertence to Sections [color=#000066]138[/color] and 141 of the [color=#000066]NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT[/color] shows that on the other elements of an offence under Section [color=#000066]138[/color] being satisfied, the burden is on the Board of Directors or the Officers incharge of the affairs of the company to show that they are not liable to be convicted. Any restriction on their power or existence of any special circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at the trial such a restriction or to show that at the relevant time they were not incharge of the affairs of the company. Reading the complaint as a whole, satisfied that it is a case where the contentions sought to be raised by the appellant can only be dealt with after the conclusion of the trial. Therefore affirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss this appeal
[/font]
