Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. It is the contention of the accused that after lapse of three months the complainant has presented the cheque in question at Ex.P1 for encashment as per Ex.P3. In the present case the cheque is dated on 28.08.2023, which was presented for the first time on 29.08.2023 and returned on 30.08.2023 as per Ex.P2 CC No.4018/2024 with shara funds insufficient. Later as per Ex.P3 on 27.11.2023, the cheque was presented again for encashment by the complainant and returned on 28.11.2023 with shara funds insufficient. It is true that as per the current RBI guidelines validity period of a cheque is three months from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque. On the very next day of the expiry date, it becomes a stale cheque. When the cheque date is 28.08.2023, the validity period ends on the date corresponding to the day before the same date three months later. Therefore three months end on 27.11.2023. The cheque in question was presented on the very last date of its validity period. Therefore, the contention that the cheque was presented after the expiry of three months is not legally sound. The cheque was processed on 27.11.2023 as per Ex.P3. Therefore, it cannot be considered as stale cheque. Even the computer system of bank does not recognize the said cheque as a stale cheque. The reason for dishonor which has been marked by the bank is funds insufficient and not for the reason cheque is outdated/stale cheque. as the case may CC No.4018/2024 be, from the date of drawing of the cheque, then the burden to prove the same lies upon the accused. During the cross of PW-2 it was suggested that "ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್‍ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಶಾಮಿಲಾಗಿ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹಿಂಬರಹವನ್ನು ತಂದು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ ." If at all the said cheque is stale cheque, the accused could have summon the bank official to examine the same. But the accused has not made any attempt neither to summon the Branch Manager or any official from the Union Bank of India, Rajajinagara, Bangalore. A cheque presented within its validity period is a prerequisite for attracting criminal liability u/s 138 of NI Act. In the context, it is pertinent to mention section 146 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.

"Section 146:- Bank slip prima facie evidence of certain facts:- The court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this chapter, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such cheque, unless and until such fact is proved".

18. From the aforesaid section it is apparent that the Bank's slip is a prima facie evidence and if the CC No.4018/2024 accused is pleading otherwise, he needs to disprove the facts contained in the return memo/slip. Now coming to the facts of the case, cheque in question at Ex.P1 was returned for the reason 'funds insufficient' as per Ex.P3 and not for outdated cheque. If the accused is alleging that cheque was presented after the expiry of three months, as the case may be, from the date of drawing the cheque, then the burden to prove the same lies upon the accused. The accused side has not summoned any bank witness in this regard. Accordingly, this court does not have any reason to disbelieve the return memo produced by the complainant.

19. In the present case on hand the cheque was presented for the first time on 29.08.2023 which was returned on 30.08.2023. Later the same was presented on 27.11.2023 which was dishonored on 28.11.2023. The word used in section 138(a) is within period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. Therefore, the word used in a statute is within a period of three months but not used as within a period of 90 dayss. Therefore, on perusal of the cheque at Ex.P1 it was dated on 28.08.2023 and presented lastly on 27.11.2023 i.e., CC No.4018/2024 within a period of validity the said cheque was presented for encashment. Thus, the accused has failed to disprove the return memo and the facts contained therein. Therefore it cannot be said that cheque in question is outdated cheque. Hence, argument of the learned counsel for the accused Ex.P1 is outdated cheque cannot be accepted.