Radheshyam vs Lalu
2022 Latest Caselaw 15896 MP

                                                              1
                           IN     THE       HIGH       COURT OF MADHYA                        PRADESH
                                                         AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                               ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7308 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RADHESHYAM S/O SHRI BADRILAL DHAKAD, AGED
                           ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
                           GRAM HANUMANTYA SAJOD, TEHSIL SARDARPUR
                           DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI NILESH PATEL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           LALU S/O SHRI KACHRA DAMAR, AGED ABOUT 45
                           YEAR S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O GRAM
                           HANUMANTYA SAJOD, TEHSIL SARDARPUR DISTRICT
                           DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT

                                 T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has given the notice within thirty days of the receipt of information by him regarding return of cheque as unpaid. So, there is no bar of proviso (b) of Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. He also draws the attention of this Court on Section 10 of General Clauses Act,1897.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order. On perusal of record, it is evident that trial Court in Paragraph Nos. 16, Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 02-12-2022 18:03:11

17 and 18 of impugned judgment has discussed at length. It is clear that under proviso (b) of Section 138 of NI Act (Ex P-4) notice was prepared on 9th February 2015 and on same day it was dispatched which was the 31st day of receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.

On perusal of record, it is evident that 8th February 2015 i.e. 30th day of receipt of information from Bank was a Sunday. It was immaterial and irrelevant, because notice was prepared on 9th February 2015.

O n perusal of the record, it is evident that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order therefore, no case for

interference is made out. No case is made out for grant of leave to appeal.

Accordingly, Cr.A.No.7308/2022 stands dismissed.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE RJ

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 02-12-2022 18:03:11