DISHOHOUR OF A CHEQUE FOR A TIME BARRED DEBT

(Pub11sed 1n 2DD? (S) Gouo11 Lou T1mes; Journo1 Seo11on; poge JJ-Jt)

SrI S.M. Deka

Direcor,
Morh Eosern 1udiciol Cllicers
lroining lnsiue. ME1Cll)
1. THE PREFACE
In tbe cover-page oI tbe AprII 200? Issue oI tbe CrImInaI Law
JournaI under tbe beadIng IMPORTANT DECISIONS" two dIgests oI
sucb decIsIons bave been promInentIy dIspIayed. Tbe IIrst oI tbese
decIsIons says tbat a cbeque Issued Ior dIscbarge oI tIme barred debt
wouId stIII IaII wItbIn purvIew oI S.13S oI N.I. Act..". TbIs apparentIy
surprIsIng statement oI Iaw prompted tbe wrIter to read up tbe Iaw on
tbIs poInt as cIoseIy as tbe IImIted resources permIt. TbIs essay Is tbe
resuIt oI tbe eIIort.
Tbe NegotIabIe Instruments Act, 1SS1 Is reIerred In tbIs
essay as N.I. Act.
2. THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Tbe beadIng oI tbe Cbapter XVII oI tbe N.I. Act renacted sInce
01.04.19S9 reads tbus :
OF PNALT1S 1N CAS OF D1SHOHOUR OF CRTA1N
CHQUS FOR 1NSUFF1C1NCY OF FUNDS 1N TH
ACCOUNTS"
One oI tbe vItaI requIrements oI SectIon 13S creatIng tbe
oIIence Is tbat tbe cbeque In questIon must be drawn Ior tbe dIscbarge,
In wboIe or In part, oI any debt or otber IIabIIIty". Tbe ExpIanatIon
appended to tbe SectIon 13S says tbus - For tbe purposes oI tbIs
SectIon, debt or otber IIabIIIty" means a IegaIIy enIorceabIe debt or otber
IIabIIIty. In tbe Iace oI tbese statutory provIsIons descrIbIng tbe words
certaIn cbeques" In tbe beadIng It Is dIIIIcuIt not to be surprIsed by tbe
statement In tbe cover-page oI CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL, APRIL 200?.
TbIs Is not aII. Tbe sectIon just IoIIowIng SectIon 13S tbat Is SectIon 139
contaIns tbe words tbe cbeque oI tbe nature reIerred to In SectIon 13S
Ior tbe dIscbarge In wboIe or In part, oI any debt or otber IIabIIIty".
2
In contrast sIgnIIIcantIy tbe LegIsIature bas not descrIbed a
cbeque In tbIs manner anywbere eIse In tbe N.I. Act. It Is trIte to say tbat
any exercIse In InterpretatIon to IInd tbe IntentIon oI tbe LegIsIature,
wbIcb Is tbe goaI oI sucb an exercIse, wItbout keepIng In mInd tbe
statutory provIsIons as above In Cbapter XVII oI tbe N.I. Act and tbe
sIgnIIIcant omIssIon Irom otber Cbapters sucb descrIptIon oI a cbeque
wIII remaIn IncompIete and erroneous. Tbe IIttIng end to tbIs paragrapb
oI tbe essay seems to be tbe IoIIowIng extract Irom SHRI ISHAR ALLOY
STEELS LTD. V. JAYASWALS NECO LTD. (2001) 3 SCC 609 :-
11 os o1uogs 1o be Kep1 1n m1nd 1o1 seo11on JSS o] 1e
Ao1 oreo1es on o]]enoe ond 1e 1ou re1o11ng 1o 1e peno1
prov1s1ons os 1o be 1n1erpre1ed s1r1o11g so 1o1 no-one
oon 1ngen1ous1g or 1ns1d1ous1g or gu11e]u11g or
s1ro1eg1oo11g be proseou1ed."
3. RAMAKRISHNAN -VS- GANGADHARAN NAIR & ANOTHER 200?
CrI.L.J. 14S6.
Tbe statement In tbe cover-page Is a dIgest Irom tbe above
decIsIon oI a SIngIe Judge oI tbe KeraIa HIgb Court. Tbat was a case
wbere tbe cbeque was Issued In dIscbarge oI a tIme barred debt. Tbe
Judgment sImpIy IoIIowed a DIvIsIon Bencb decIsIon oI tbe same HIgb
Court reported In RAMAKRISHNAN -VS- PARTHASARADHY, 2003(2) Ker
L.T 613. Tbe submIssIon made beIore tbe SIngIe Judge tbat tbe DIvIsIon
Bencb decIsIon beIng based on an erroneous vIew oI tbe concept oI
acknowIedgement under SectIon 1S oI tbe LImItatIon Act deserves
reconsIderatIon by a Larger Bencb dId not prevaII. Tbe SIngIe Judge In
para S oI tbe Judgment In eIIect beId tbat tbe Judgment oI tbe DIvIsIon
Bencb does not rest on any acknowIedgement under SectIon 1S oI tbe
LImItatIon Act but Is based on SectIon 2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act and
SectIon 46 oI tbe N.I. Act. FoIIowIng tbe DIvIsIon Bencb It was beId tbat
tbe cbeque ItseII constItutes a vaIId promIse In wrItIng requIred under
SectIon 2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act. SeveraI case Iaw cIted and noted at
para 6 oI tbe Judgment were not at aII consIdered tbInkIng aII oI tbem to
be deaIIng wItb acknowIedgement. So overwbeImIng was tbe InIIuence oI
tbe DIvIsIon Bencb Judgment tbat tbe SIngIe Judge even IaIIed to notIce
tbat tbe FuII Bencb decIsIon oI tbe same HIgb Court tbat Is AIR 19SS Ker
31(FB) deaIt wItb SectIon 2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act and tbe Iaw stated by
tbe DIvIsIon Bencb on SectIon 2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act Is In dIrect
conIIIct wItb tbe Iaw IaId down by tbe FuII Bencb. IncIdentaIIy tbe FuII
Bencb decIsIon was not notIced by tbe DIvIsIon Bencb. BeIore anaIyzIng
tbe DIvIsIon Bencb decIsIon wbIcb Is tbe basIs oI 200? CrI.L.J. 14S6 It
wIII be approprIate to Iook at wbat tbe otber HIgb Courts say on tbe
matter oI dIsbonour oI a cbeque Ior a tIme barred debt.
3
4. THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT -GIRDHARI LAL RATHI -Vs-
P.T.V. RAMANUJACHARI, 199?(2) CRIMES 6SS.
TbIs seems to be tbe earIIest case wbere tbe matter IeII Ior
decIsIon. Tbe HIgb Court cIearIy beId tbat II a cbeque Is Issued Ior a
tIme barred debt and It Is dIsbonoured tbe accused cannot be convIcted
under SectIon 13S oI tbe N.I. Act. sImpIy, on tbe ground tbat tbe debt Is
not IegaIIy recoverabIe. Indeed tbe KeraIa HIgb Court ItseII IoIIowed tbIs
decIsIon In SASSERIYIL JOSEPH -Vs- DEVASSIA, 2001 CrI.L.J 24 a
SIngIe Judge decIsIon dated 22.09.2000. Tbese two Judgments are based
on tbe statutory provIsIons as IndIcated In paragrapb 2 oI tbIs essay. In
SASSERIYIL JOSEPH (Supra) tbe Ioan was oI January, 19SS and tbe
cbeque was Issued In August 1991. Tbere was no vaIId acknowIedgement
oI IIabIIIty wItbIn tbe tbree year perIod oI LImItatIon. To CounseIs
argument based on SectIon 2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act, tbe HIgb Court
responded tbus :
No doub1, 1e prom1se 1o pog o 11me borred oeque
(deb1) 1s vo11d ond en]oroeob1e, 1] 11 1s mode 1n ur111ng
ond s1gned bg 1e person 1o be oorged 1ereu11. Bu1,
11 1s o1eor ]rom Seo11on JSS o] 1e Nego11ob1e
1ns1rumen1s Ao1 1o1 1n order 1o o11roo1 1e peno1
prov1s1ons 1n 1e bouno1ng o] o oeque 1n Cop1er XV11,
11 1s essen11o1 1o1 1e d1sonoured oeque sou1d ove
been 1ssued 1n d1soorge, uo11g or 1n por1 o] ong deb1
or o1er 11ob1111g o] 1e drouer 1o 1e pogee."
IncIdentaIIy, SASSERIYIL JOSEPH (Supra) reacbed tbe
Supreme Court, more oI wbIcb wIII IoIIow Iatter In tbIs wrItIng.
S. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - H. NARASIMHA RAO -VS-
VEBKATARAM R., 200? CRI.L.J. SS3.
In tbe case tbe trIaI court accepted tbe evIdence oI tbe
compIaInant tbat In tbe year 1994 be gave a Ioan oI Rs.60,000J- to tbe
accused but onIy on tbe ground tbat tbe cbeques were Issued In May
1999 tbat Is wben tbe debt bas become barred by IImItatIon tbe accused
was acquItted. But In tbe appeaI agaInst acquIttaI reIyIng on 2003(2) Ker
L.T. 613, tbe DIvIsIon Bencb Judgment oI tbe KeraIa HIgb Court tbe
acquIttaI was overturned. A.V. MURTHY -VS- B.S.NAGABSAVNNA
(2002)2 SCC 642 was aIso pressed Into servIce. It wIII be necessary to
anaIyze mInuteIy and understand cIearIy tbIs Judgment oI tbe Supreme
Court wbIcb seems to bave InIIuenced tbe DIvIsIon Bencb oI tbe KeraIa
HIgb Court.
4
6. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT - NARENDRA V. KANEKAR -Vs-
BARDE2 TALUKA CO-OP HOUSING MORTGAGE SOCIERY, 2006
CrI.L.J. 3111.
Tbe Ioan In tbIs case was oI 0S.11.1996 and tbe Iour
cbeques came to be Issued on tbe 30
tb
oI September, October, November
and December, 2003. Tbus aII tbe cbeques were Issued mucb beyond tbe
tbree year perIod oI IImItatIon oI recovery oI tbe Ioan. Tbe HIgb Court
reIIed on Its earIIer Judgment on tbe poInt ASHWINI SATISH BHAT -VS-
SHRIJEEVAN DIVAKAR LOLIENKAR (1999)1 Goa L.T. 40S, GIRDHARI
LAL RATHI (Supra) and SASSERIYIL JOSEPH (Supra) dId not IoIIow tbe
KeraIa DIvIsIon Bencb Judgment wbIcb beId tbat tbe cbeque gIven Ior
tbe dIscbarge oI a tIme barred debt ItseII becomes a contract under
SectIon 2S(3) and can Iead to a convIctIon under SectIon 13S N.I. Act II
tbe otber condItIons necessary Ior sucb convIctIon are estabIIsbed. In
tbIs case aIongwItb tbe cbeques an aIIIdavItJundertakIng admIttIng tbe
tIme barred Ioan was gIven and because oI tbat tbe debt was beId to be
enIorceabIe. Tbe HIgb Court specIIIcaIIy consIdered SASSERIYIL
JOSEPH (Supra) as bavIng tbe ImprImatur oI tbe Supreme Court and as
tbe Iaw decIared on tbe matter. TbIs wIII be consIdered In detaII Iatter In
tbIs wrItIng.
?. APPRAISAL OF DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA
HIGH COURT -RAMAKRISHNAN -VS- PARTHASARDHY, 2003(2)
Ker. L.T. 613, 2003(3) INDIAN CIVIL CASES 662.
Tbe vIew oI tbe DIvIsIon Bencb oI tbe HIgb Court tbat a
cbeque gIven In dIscbarge oI a tIme barred debt on Its dIsbonour and on
prooI oI otber requIsItes under SectIon 13S N.I. Act may sound In a
crImInaI prosecutIon rests on tbe boIdIng tbat a cbeque oI sucb nature
drawn and deIIvered constItutes a promIse to pay a tIme barred debt
wItbIn SectIon 2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act. Added to tbe above boIdIng Is
tbe IaIIure to dIstInguIsb cIvII LIabIIIty Irom crImInaI IIabIIIty.
SectIon 4, S, 6 and 13 oI tbe N.I. Act make It cIear tbat oI tbe
tbree kInds oI negotIabIe Instruments onIy a promIssory note contaIns an
uncondItIonaI undertakIng tbat Is promIse to pay wbereas a bIII oI
excbange and a cbeque contaIn an uncondItIonaI order as dIstInguIsbed
Irom a promIse. Tbus tbe boIdIng tbat tbe cbeque ItseII constItutes a
promIse In wrItIng sIgned by tbe person to be cbarged tberewItb wItbIn
SectIon 2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act bas been reacbed wItbout consIderIng
tbIs vItaI IegaI cbaracter oI a cbeque statutorIIy provIded and as sucb Is
per IncurIam. CHACKO VARKEY -VS- THOMMEN THOMAS, AIR 19SS
Ker 31 a FuII Bencb decIsIon oI tbe KeraIa HIgb Court bad an occasIon
to Iay down tbe Iaw under SectIon 26 oI tbe Tranvancore Contract Act
wbIcb corresponds to SectIon 2S oI tbe IndIan Contract Act and In tbat
5
context quoted wItb tbe approvaI PoIIock and MuIIa on Contract tbe
IoIIowIng :
A]1er 1e per1od o] 11m11o11on ep1res, no11ng sor1 o]
on epress prom1se u111 prov1de o ]res per1od o]
11m11o11on; on 1mp11ed prom1se 1s no1 su]]1o1en1."
Tbe DIvIsIon Bencb IaIIed to notIce tbIs bIndIng precedent
and on tbat count aIso tbe boIdIng as to tbe cbeque beIng a promIse In
wrItIng wItbIn SectIon 2S(3) oI tbe contract Act Is per IncurIam. It bas to
be stated bowever tbat tbe FuII Bencb decIsIon was not pIaced beIore tbe
DIvIsIon Bencb but wben tbe same was pIaced beIore tbe Iater SIngIe
Judge on a pIea Ior reconsIderatIon oI tbe DIvIsIon Bencb Judgment tbe
HIgb Court brusbed It asIde by sImpIy tbInkIng tbIs to be not deaIIng
wItb SectIon 2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act.
Tbe Statutory provIsIon cIearIy IndIcate tbat penaI provIsIon
oI SectIon 13S oI tbe N.I. Act Is appIIcabIe onIy to certaIn cbeques" Ior
tbe dIscbarge In wboIe or In part, oI any debt or otber IIabIIIty", wbIcb
accordIng to tbe ExpIanatIon must be a IegaIIy enIorceabIe debt or otber
IIabIIIty". Tbe same nature and purpose oI tbe cbeque bave agaIn been
empbasIzed In SectIon 139 oI tbe N.I. Act. A cIose perusaI oI tbese
provIsIon yIeIds tbe resuIt tbat tbe debt or IIabIIIty and tbe cbeque In
dIscbarge tbereoI are two dIstInct matters and cannot be merged Into
one by tbe cbeque ItseII Ior tbe purpose oI tbe penaI provIsIon In SectIon
13S. TbIs was bInted but not exposed In so many words In SASSERIYIL
JOSEPH (Supra) wbIcb was overruIed by tbe DIvIsIon Bencb. A cbeque
gIven In dIscbarge oI a tIme barred debt wIII not constItute a promIse In
wrItIng not even an ImpIIed promIse but wIII under SectIon 30 oI tbe N.I.
Act on dIsbonour gIve rIse to a cIvII IIabIIIty and not a crImInaI IIabIIIty
under SectIon 13S oI N.I. Act. Tbe DIvIsIon Bencb IaIIed to dIstInguIsb
between cIvII IIabIIIty and crImInaI IIabIIIty.
Tbe DIvIsIon Bencb was unabIe to concur wItb tbe vIews In
GIRDHARI LAL (Supra) and ASHWINI SATISH BHAT (Supra) and rejected
SASSERIYIL JOSEPH (Supra) on tbe ground tbat reIevant provIsIons
IIke S.2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act and S.46 oI tbe NegotIabIe Instruments
Act, were not brougbt to tbe notIce oI tbe Iearned SIngIe Judge." Tbe
IactuaI error In tbe above observatIon Is expIIcIt on tbe extract Irom
SASSERIYIL JOSEPH (Supra) In para 4 oI tbIs wrItIng. Tbe SIngIe Judge
dId consIder at Iengtb SectIon 2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act. Tbe reIevance oI
SectIon 46 oI tbe N.I. Act deaIIng wItb negotIatIon wouId bave arIsen
onIy II tbe cbeque can In Iaw be accommodated wItbIn SectIon 2S(3) oI
tbe Contract Act, wbIcb tbe SIngIe Judge couId not do.
6
In dIsmIssIng tbe specIaI Ieave petItIon arIsIng out oI tbe
Judgment In SASSERIYIL JOSEPH (Supra) on 10.09.2001 tbe Supreme
Court spoke tbus :-
We ove eord 1e 1eorned oounse1 ]or 1e pe1111oner.
We ove perused 1e Judgmen1 o] 1e 1g Cour1 o]
Rero1o 1n Cr1m1no1 Appeo1 No.JtJ o] J994 oon]1rm1ng
1e ]udgmen1J order o] ooqu111o1 possed bg 1e Add1.
Sess1ons Judge, To1osserg 1n Cr1m1no1 Appeo1 No.2J2
o] J992 o1d1ng 1n1er o11o 1o1 1e oeque 1n ques11on
ov1ng been 1ssued bg 1e oooused ]or due u1o uos
borred bg 11m11o11on 1e peno1 prov1s1on under S.JSS o]
1e Nego11ob1e 1ns1rumen1s Ao1 1s no1 o11roo1ed 1n 1e
oose.
On 1e ]oo1s o] 1e oose os ovo11ob1e on 1e
reoords ond 1e o1eor ond unomb1guous prov1s1on 1n 1e
p1ono11on 1o S.JSS o] 1e Nego11ob1e 1ns1rumen1s Ao1
1e Judgmen1 o] 1e 1ouer oppe11o1e Cour1 os
oon]1rmed bg 1e H1g Cour1 1s unosso11ed.
Tere]ore, 1e Speo1o1 Leove Pe1111on 1s
d1sm1ssed."
Tbe above was pIaced beIore tbe DIvIsIon Bencb. To counter
tbe above tbe opposIng counseI pIaced A.V. MURTHY -Vs- B.S.
NAGABASVNNA (2002)2 SCC 642 dated tbe S
tb
oI February, 2002. Tbat
was a case wbere tbe TrIaI Court Issued process on a compIaInt wbere
tbe Ioan was stated to bave been advanced about Iour years back". Tbe
AddI. SessIons Judge quasbed tbe compIaInt reIyIng on tbe ExpIanatIon
to SectIon 13S N.I. Act tbat Ioan was barred by IImItatIon on tbe date oI
tbe cbeque In questIon. Karnataka HIgb Court concurred but eventuaIIy
tbe Supreme Court reversed tbe Judgment oI tbe HIgb Court and
restored order oI tbe TrIaI Court IssuIng process. Tbe DIvIsIon Bencb oI
tbe KeraIa bIgb Court seems to bave been greatIy Impressed by tbese
Iacts and concIuded tbus :-
T1s 1s 1nd1oo11ve o] 1e ]oo1 1o1 1e oooused uos no1
en1111ed 1o esoope 11ob1111g 1o su]]er peno11g mere1g on
ooooun1 o] 1e ]oo1 1o1 1e 11m11o11on ]or reooverg o] 1e
omoun1 od ep1red be]ore 1e do1e o] 1ssue o] 1e
oeque."
A cIose perusaI oI tbe entIre judgment oI tbe Supreme Court
does not seems to yIeId any sucb IndIcatIon. Tbe Supreme Court was
onIy brIngIng bome tbe poInt tbat mereIy because oI tbe words tbat tbe
Ioan was advanced about Iour years back" It may not be barred by
IImItatIon. It may stIII be IegaIIy recoverabIe II tbere Is a
acknowIedgement In Iaw or by way oI a wrItten promIse wItbIn SectIon
2S(3) oI tbe Contract Act. Indeed baIance-sbeets tendIng to prove
acknowIedgement was produced beIore tbe Supreme Court. Tbe Supreme
7
Court onIy dId not IorecIose a IIndIng by tbe MagIstrate on tbe questIon
oI tbe Ioan beIng barred by IImItatIon wbIcb may be raIsed by way oI
deIence at tbe trIaI. Tbe DIvIsIon Bencb dId not notIce tbat wbIIe
SASSERIYIL JOSEPH (Supra) reacbed Supreme Court aIter a IuII trIaI
AV. MURTHY (Supra) reacbed Supreme Court beIore any trIaI couId be
beId by tbe MagIstrate. AV. MURTHY (Supra) cannot be read even as
ImpIyIng tbat a bar oI IImItatIon Is outsIde tbe ExpIanatIon to SectIon
13S and tbat tbe ExpIanatIon wouId onIy mean tbat tbe IIabIIIty or debt
sbouId not arIse out oI a transactIon wbIcb Is IIIegaI. It sbouId be not a
cbeque to meet a IIabIIIty under a wagerIng contract wbIcb sbaII not be
IegaIIy enIorceabIe." Tbe quote extracted Irom tbe DIvIsIon Bencb
Judgment perbaps bas been InspIred by para 6 oI A.V. MURTHY (Supra)
wbIcb In tbe IIgbt oI tbe entIre judgment does not appear to restrIct tbe
scope oI tbe ExpIanatIon as above. Tbe Supreme Court was gIvIng onIy
an IIIustratIon to brIng bome tbe poInt tbat tbe quasbIng was erroneous
IImItatIon unIIke an admItted wagerIng contract beIng a mIxed questIon
oI Iaw and Iact.
Tbe DIvIsIon Bencb examInIng dIsmIssaI oI tbe SLP In
SASSERIYIL JOSEPH (Supra) In tbe IIgbt oI A.V. MURTHY (Supra)
concIuded tbat tbe dIsmIssaI order cannot be saId to be tbe enuncIatIon
oI Iaw wbIcb my be bIndIng under ArtIcIe 141. Tbere Is a judIcIaIIy
recognIsed dIstInctIon between an order oI dIsmIssaI oI a SpecIaI Leave
PetItIon In IImIne wItbout a speakIng order and tbat oI a SpecIaI Leave
PetItIon by a speakIng order as regards Its vaIue as a precedent. Tbe
order In SASSERIYIL JOSEPH (Supra) quoted In IuII earIIer IaIIs In tbe
Iater varIety and Iays down Iaw wItbIn ArtIcIe 141. Tbe error oI tbe
DIvIsIon Bencb In not IoIIowIng a bIndIng precedent and IoIIowIng wbat Is
at best an ImpIIcatIon demonstrabIy erroneous can best be exposed by
tbe IoIIowIng words oI tbe Supreme Court In para 6 oI UNION OF INDIA -
VS- ALL INDIA SERVICES PENSIONERS' AND ANOTHER, (19SS) 2 SCC
SS0 tbus :-
T1s 1s uo11g un1enob1e ground. Te Speo1o1 Leove
Pe1111on uere no1 d1sm1ssed u11ou1 reosons. T1s Cour1
os g1ven reosons ]or d1sm1ss1ng 1e Speo1o1 Leove
pe1111on. Wen suo reosons ore g1ven 1e deo1s1on
beoomes one u1o o11roo1s Ar11o1e J4J o] 1e
Cons111u11on u1o prov1des 1o1 1e 1ou deo1ored bg
1e Supreme Cour1 so11 be b1nd1ng on o11 1e Cour1s
u111n 1e 1err11org o] 1nd1o."
It appears tbat tbe DIvIsIon Bencb IaIIed to apprecIate tbe
true ratIo oI botb tbe judgments oI tbe Supreme Court bearIng on tbe
matter. Tbe DIvIsIon Bencb couId not bave overruIed SESSARIYIL
JOSEPH (Supra) aIter tbe Supreme Court bas aIIIrmed It on tbe specIIIc
questIon tbat IImItatIon Is wItbIn tbe ExpIanatIon to SectIon 13S oI tbe
N.I. Act. Tbus tbere can be no questIon tbat tbe DIvIsIon Bencb
8
Judgment oI tbe KeraIa HIgb Court dId not Iay down correct Iaw wben It
beId tbat a cbeque Ior a tIme barred debt on beIng dIsbonoured can
embroII a drawer In a crImInaI prosecutIon. Tbe Important decIsIon No.1
In tbe cover-page oI AprII, 200? Issue oI tbe CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
tbus Is Important onIy negatIveIy because oI tbe errors IndIcated In tbIs
essay.
S. THE CONCLUSION
Tbe Andbra Pradesb HIgb Court In GIRDHARI LAL RATHI
(Supra), Tbe Bombay HIgb Court In ASHWINI SATISH BHAT (Supra) and
NARENDRA V. KANEKAR (Supra) and tbe KeraIa HIgb Court In
SASSERIYIL JOSEPH (Supra) beIng In consonance wItb tbe Iaw IaId
down by tbe Supreme Court In tbe speakIng order dIsmIssIng tbe petItIon
Ior specIaI Ieave to AppeaI (crImInaI) No. 1?SS oI 2001 dated 10
tb
oI
September 2001 bave correctIy decIded tbe Iaw by boIdIng tbat a cbeque
Ior a tIme barred debt on dIsbonour cannot Iorm tbe IoundatIon oI a
crImInaI prosecutIon under SectIon 13S oI tbe N.I. Act. Tbe Judgment oI
tbe KeraIa HIgb Court In DIvIsIon Bencb RAMAKRISHNAN (Supra), In
SIngIe Bencb RAMAKRISHNAN (Supra) and oI tbe Karnataka HIgb Court
In H. NARASIMHA RAO (Supra) beIng In tbe teetb oI tbe Supreme Court
order quoted earIIer In tbIs essay do not Iay down tbe correct Iaw In tbe
matter oI a crImInaI prosecutIon on dIsbonour oI a cbeque Ior a tIme-
barred debt.