Holding

The complaint was barred by limitation; the 2002 amendment to Section 142(b) is substantive and cannot be given retrospective effect, no condonation was sought, and the amendment to add Section 420 IPC was beyond the court's jurisdiction.

Summary

The appellant had taken a loan and issued post‑dated cheques which were later dishonoured; a legal notice was sent on 17‑01‑2001 and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 20‑04‑2001, later amended to include Section 420 IPC. The High Court held that the amendment to Section 142(b) of the Act (introduced in 2002) allowed condonation of the delay and that the amendment to add Section 420 was permissible, thus sustaining the summons. The Supreme Court examined the limitation period, the retrospective operation of the 2002 amendment, the presumption of service of notice, and whether the facts disclosed an offence under Section 420 IPC. It concluded that the complaint was barred by limitation, the 2002 amendment is substantive and cannot be applied retrospectively, no condonation application was filed, and the amendment to add Section 420 was impermissible. Consequently, the magistrate lacked jurisdiction and the direction to issue summons was set aside.

Issues considered

The complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed after the one‑month limitation period; was it barred by limitation?
Does the proviso inserted in Section 142(b) by the 2002 amendment constitute a substantive provision and can it be applied retrospectively to condone delay?
Was the amendment of the complaint to add an offence under Section 420 IPC permissible?
Was the legal notice deemed to have been served within the statutory period under the General Clauses Act and Evidence Act?
Do the allegations in the complaint disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 420 IPC?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 27
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 114
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 415, s. 420
Limitation Act, 1963s. 12(1)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138, s. 142

Subjects

Negotiable Instruments ActSection 138Limitation periodRetrospective effectAmendment of complaintSection 420 IPCService of noticeCondonation of delayPost‑dated cheque

Judgment

,4
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 681
_.
SUBODH S. SALASKAR A
V.
JAYPRAKASH M. SHAH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1190 of 2008)
AUGUST 1, 2008
B
~ [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Ss. 138 and 142 with
proviso to clause (b) of s. 142 inserted by Amendment Act,

... 2002:
Dishonour of Cheque - Delay in filing complaint - Held:
c
- Ex-facie complaint was barrf?d by limitation - However, no
application for condonation of delay was filed - Though power
to condone the delay in fifing complaint after expiry of period .
of limitation conferred upon the Court in terms of proviso to D
clause (b) of s. 142 but it could not have been given retro-
~
spective effect - Courts below erred in applying the proviso to
the facts of the instant case - Direction to issue summons on
the appellant, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction, hence,
...... nullity. E
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 05. Rr. 9 (5) - Notice -
Presumption of service - Discussed - Evidence Act, 1872 -
s.114.
General Clauses Act - Section 27 - Service of Notice - F
--1 Ingredients of
Penal Code, 1860; s. 420 /PC - Applicability of - Dis-
honor of Cheque - Complaint - Amendment in complaint
adding s. 420 /PC therein - Held: The Court had no jurisdic-
\
tion to allow amendment of complaint petition at a later stage G
adding s. 420 /PC in the complaint - Post-dated Cheques
were issued for repayment of loan amount issued in the year
"'1 ~
1996 when accounts were operative, however, presented to

681 H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.

A the Bank on January 10, 2007 - Even assuming that account
was closed, subsequently, it cannot be said that appellant had
an intention to cheat the complainant - Moreover, allegations
made in the complaint petition, even if taken to be correct in
its entirety, do not disclose commission of offence uls. 420
B. /PC.
Appellant had taken a financial loan from respondent
No.1, which was allegedly paid by him vide two post-dated
Cheques. Respondent No.1 claimed that when the
Cheques were presented, they were returned by the Bank
C with the remarks that the account was not in operation.
However, the appellant paid the amount of loan in cash.
Respondent No.1 sent a notice to the appellant on Janu-
ary 17, 2001 and then filed a Complaint Petition against
him on April 20, 2001. The complaint was sought to be
D amended for adding s. 420 IPC, which was allowed by
the Court. Appellant filed an application for discharge,·
which was dismissed by the trial Court. Revision Petition
was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Appellant chal-
lenged the order by filing a writ petition, which was dis-
E missed by the High Court holding that the question as to
~-
whether the complaint is barred by limitation is a mixed
question. of law and fact. Even otherwise as a· result of
amendment of Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act even if
delay has been caused in filing the complaint, the Magis-
F trate has power to condone the delay; and that although
the Magistrate could not have allowed amendment of the
complaint petition but as it discloses sufficient averments
in regard to commission of an offence under Section 420
.of Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court was justified in issu-
G:'.~· )ng the process in respect of the said provision also. Hence
. t' the present appeal. .
· ·.Appellant contended that th~ High Court committed
1 f,
a serious error in passing the impugned judgment inso-
far as it failed to take into consideration that the complaint
H petition was barred by limitation, which would be evident
SUBODH S. SALASKAR v. JAYPRAKASH M. 683
SHAH & ANR.
~
from the admitted facts; that the proviso appended to A
Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act being substantive in nature cannot be held to be ret-
rospective in operation; that the allegations made in the
complaint petition even if given face value and taken to
be correct in their entirety, no case has been made out for B
~ taking cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code; that in any event, as the principal complaint being
for commission of an offence under Section 138 of the
Act was not maintainable, the application for amendment
to insert Section 420- of the Indian Penal Code was also c
not maintainable.
Respondent No. 1 submitted that the date of service
of notice being not fixed and the complainant having
asked the post office to disclose the date of actual ser-
vice of notice, it cannot be said that the legal notice was D
served upon the accused; and that in any event, as the
-'I
complaint petition disclosed commission of an offence
on the part of the appellant under Section 420 of the In-
dian Penal Code, the High Court's judgment is unassail-
able. E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act provides a penal provision. The object of the Parlia-
-i
ment in brining the same. in the statute book is to create F
~
an atmosphere of faith arid reliance in the banking sys-
tern. (Para - 10) [690-D-E]
1.2 Unless the conditions precedent for taking cog-
nizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Act are
satisfied, the court will have no jurisdiction to pass an G
order in that behalf. The Act was amended in the year 2002
whereby additional powers have been conferred upon the
• court to take cognizance even after expiry of the period
of limitation by ~onferring on it a discretion to waive the
period of one month. (Paras - 15 & 11) [692-F; 690-E-F] H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

i
A S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Nee ta Bhalla and Another
(2007) 4 SCC 70; Saro} Kumar Poddar v State (NCT of Delhi)
and Another (2007) 3 SCC 693 and DCM Financial Services
Ltd. v. JN. Sareen and Another (2008) 8 SC;\LE 54- referred
to.
B 1.3 The legal notice admittedly was issued on ~7th
January, 2001. It was sent by speed post. It was supposed 'I '
f

to be served within _a couple of days. A bqre perusal of the
statements made in paragraph 10 of the complaint peti-
tion clearly demonstrate that although the actual date of
c service of notice was allegedly not known, the complain-
ant proceeded on the basis that the same was served \-

within a reasonable period; otherwise in absence of ser- l
vice of notice or deemed service thereof, the question of r
t-
non-compliance of clause (c) of the proviso appended to ~
I
D Section 138 of the Act would not arise and .consequently
the complaint petition would not be maif!tainable. (Para -
~
19) [695-G-H; 696-A-B] r-
Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and Another v Ashoka Alloy
Steel Ltd: and Others (2006) 9 SCC 340 - referred to.
E . ,..-

1.4 In terms of the provisions of the _General Clauses
Act, a notice must be deemed to have been served in the ,.
-.

ordinary course subject to the fulfillment of the conditions '
laid down therein. Thirty days' time ordinarily must be held ~
F to be sufficient for service of notice. In fact when the ser-
vice of notice is sought to be effected by Speed Post, or-
~
dinarily the service takes place within a few days. Even
under Order V, Rule 9(5) of the Co~e of Civil Procedure,
1908, summons is presumed to be served if it does not
come back within thirty days. In a situation of this nature,
G
there was no occasion for the Court to hold that service
of notice could not be effected within a period of thirty
days. (Para - 21) [697-A,D,E] l

1.5 Presumption of service, under the statute, would
H arise not only when it is sent by registered post in terms
SUBODH S. SALASKAR v. JAYPRAKASH M. 685
SHAH & ANR.

of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act but such a pre- A
sumption may be raised also under Section 114 of the
Evidence Act. Even when a notice is received back with
an endorsement that the party has refused to accept, still
then a presumption can be raised as regards the valid
service of notice. (Para - 22) [697-F-G] B
C. C. Alavi Haji v. Pal ape tty Muhammed and Another
(2007) 6 sec 555 - relied on.
1.6 The complaint petition admittedly was filed on
20.04.2001. The notice having been sent on 17.01.2001, if c
the presumption of service of notice within a reasonable
time is raised, it should be deemed to have been served
at best within a period of thirty days from the date of issu-
ance thereof, i.e., 16.02.2001. The accused was required
to make payment in terms of the said notice within fifteen
0
days thereafter, i.e., on or about 2.03.2001. The complaint
petition, therefore, should have been. filed by 2.04.2001.
Ex facie, it was barred by limitation. No application for
condonation of delay was filed. No application for con-
donation of delay was otherwise maintainable. The pro-
visions of the Act being special in nature, in terms thereof E
the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of an of-
fence under Section 138 of the Act was limited to the pe-
riod of thirty days in terms of the proviso appended
thereto. The Parliament only with a view to obviate the afore-
mentioned difficulties on the part of the complainant in- F
serted proviso to Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act in
2002. It confers a jurisdiction upon the court to condone
the delay. It is, therefore, a substantive provision and not a
procedural one. (Paras - 23 & 24) [698-F-G; 699-A-D]
G
1.7 If the proviso appended to Clause (b) of Section
142 of the Act contained a substantive provision and not
a procedural one, it could not have been given a retro-
spective effect. A substantive law, as it is well-settled, in
absence of an express provision, cannot be given a ret- H
IL
I
t

686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
-{..

A rospective effect or retroactive operation. (Para - 24) [699-F]
1.8 There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the
courts below committed a manifest error in applying the
proviso to the fact of the instant case. If the complaint
petition was barred by limitation, the Magistrate had no
B jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 138 of the :it·
Act. The direction to issue summons on the appellant,
therefore, being illegal and without jurisdiction was a nut-
lity. (Para - 26)

c Madishetti Bala Ramu/ (Dead) By LRs. v. Land Acquisi- ·
tion Officer (2007) 9 SCC 650 and Anil Kumar Goel v. Kishan
Chand Kaura (2008) AIR SCW 295 - relied on.
2.1 Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code defines io-
"cheating". The said provision requires: (1) deception of I
D any person, (ii) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly in-
ducing that person to deliver any property to any person
or to consent that any person shall retain any property, ""
or (iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not
i
E so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely
to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
).
reputation or property. Deception of any person is com- •"
mon to the second and third requirements of the provi-
sion. (Para - 27) [700-G-H; 701-A-B]
F Devender Kumar Sing/a v. Baldev Krishan Sing/a (2005) ~
)o-
9 sec 15 - relied on.
2.2 The cheques were post dated ones. Admittedly
they were issued in the year 1996. They were presented
before the bank on a much later date. They were in fact
G
presented only on 10.01.2001. When the cheques were 1---
11
issued, the accounts were operative. Even assuming that ....
'f
the account was closed subsequently the same would JL
not mean that the appellant had an intention to cheat when
the post dated cheques were issued. Even otherwise the
H ..
t
SUBODH S. SALASKAR v. JAYPRAKASH M. 687
SHAH & ANR.

allegations made in the complaint petition, even if given A
face value and taken to be correct in its entirety do not
disclose commission of an offence under Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code. They do not satisfy the ingredi-
ents of the suit provision. It is, therefore, in the fact situa-
tion obtaining in the instant case that the provisions of B
~ Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were not attracted.
(Para - 29) [702-D-F]
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd.
and Ors., JT 2008 (1) SC 340 - referred to.
c
3. The Court had no jurisdiction to allow the amend-
ment of the complaint petition at a later stage. (Para - 30)
[702-G]
Case Law Reference
(2001) 4 sec 10 Referred to Para -14 D
(2001) 3 sec 693 Referred to Para - 14
(2008) 8 SCALE 54 Referred to Para - 14
(2006) 9 sec 340 Referred to Para - 20
(2001) s sec 555 Relied on Para - 22 E
(2001) 9 sec 650 Relied on Para - 25
(2008) AIR sew 295 Relied on Para - 25
(2005) 9 sec 15 Relied on Para - 27
JT 2008 (1) SC 340 Referred to Para - 28 F
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1190 of 2008
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2007 of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Peti- G
tion No. 330 of 2007

..
;...,_ " Manish Mohan, Anita Mohan and Ugra Shankar Prasad
for the Appellant.

Santosh Paul, M.J. Paul, Arvind Gupta, Aanchal Jain, H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

-}
A Manish Pitalc and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respon'"
dents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivere.d by.
I--
•
S.B. SINHA, J : 1: Leave granted.
B 2. Whether the proviso appended t9 s.ection i42 ot .the •
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ~'..the.Act") inserted r
by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous
"'"
Provisions) Act, 2002, is retrospective in operation is the ques- ·-
tion involved in this appeal Which arises 'oLit of a f udgment and
c order dateo 19.10.2007 pass.ed by the .High Court of Judica-
ture at Bombay rn_Crir:ninal WritPetition No. 330 of.2001:;
3. The relationship between the parties hereto was that of a
borrower and creditor. A financial loan of Rs. 1,70,000/-was ob-
tained by the appellant in 1996 from the respondent No. 1, which
D
according to him has been paid off. Two post dated cheques,
one bearing No. 460157 dated 6.12.1996 for a sum of Rs. 26,900/ ,l>-
- and the other bearing No. 460158 dated 28.09.2000 for a sum
of Rs, 1,70,000/:, however, were handed over to him.

E 4. Appellant contends that the amount of loan w,as repaid
in cash. Admittedly, the cheques were presented before the bank
on 10.01.2001. They were returned to the respondent No. 1 by ....
the bank alleging that no such account, in the name of the ap- I-

pellant was in operation. A legal notice dated 17 .01.2001 was
F sent by speed post asking the appellant to pay the said amount
of Rs. 1, 70,000/- failing which
. legal action including criminal
- ,..
action would be taken againsthim.
5. A complaint petition alleging commission of an offence
under Section 138 of the Act .. however, was filed only on
G 20.04.2001.
6. _Indisputably, the complaint petition was sought to be
amended for adding Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in y-
the complaint petition. The said application was allowed by an .._
_,..L-

order dated 14.08.2001.
H
SUBODH S. SALASKAR v. JAYPRAKASH M. 689
SHAH & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J]
t
7. Appellant filed an application for discharge on A
16.12.2003 inter alia on the premise that the said complaint
petition was barred by limitation. It was dismissed by an order
dated 14.11.2006. The r~vision application filed by the appel-
lant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was also
dismissed. A criminal writ petition filed by the appellant marked B
as Criminal Writ Petition No. 330 of 2007 before the High Co'urt
of Bombay has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judg-
ment holding:
(i) The question as to whether t_he complaint is barred
by limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. c
Even otherwise as a result of amendment of Clause
(b) of Section 142 of the Act even if delay has been
caused in filing the complaint, the Magistrate has
power to condone the delay;
D
(ii) Although the Magistrate could not have allowed
amendment of the complaint petition but as it
discloses sufficient averments in regard to
commission of an offence under Section 420 of Indian
Penal Code, the Trial Court was justified in issuing
the process in respect of the said provision also. E

8. Mr. Manish Mohan, learned counsel appearing on be-
half of the appellant would submit that the High Court commit-
ted a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar
as it failed to take into consideration that : F
(i) the complaint petition was barred by limitation, which
would be evident from the admitted facts;
(ii) the proviso appended to Clause (b) of Section 142
being substantive in nature cannot be held to be
G
retrospective in operation;
(iii) allegations made in the complaint petition even if given

-' "' face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, no
case has been made out for taking cognizance under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

-+
A (iv) in any event, as the principal complaint being for
t'
commission of an offence under Section 138 of the
Act was not maintainable, the application for
amendment to insert Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code was also not maintainable.
B 9. Mr. Santosh Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf
j
of the respondent No. 1, submitted that from a perusal of the
complaint petition it would appear that the date of service of
notice being not fixed and the complainant having asked the '>-

post office to disclose the date of actual service of notice, it
c cannot be said that the legal notice was served upon the ac-
cused immediately after issuance thereof.
In any event, as the complaint petition disclosed commis-
sion of an offence on the part of the appellant under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court's judgment is un-
D
assailable.
10. Section 138 of the Act provides a penal provision. The '!>-

object of the Parliament in brining the same in the statute book
is well-known, viz., to create an atmosphere of faith and reli-
E ance in the banking system.
11. The Act was amended in the year 2002 whereby addi-
tional powers have been conferred upon the court to take cog-
nizance even after expiry of the period of limitation by confer-
ring on it a discretion to waive the period of one month.
F
12. Before embarking on the questions raised, we may
notice that the proviso appended to Section 138 of the Act lim-
its the applicability of the main provision stating:
"138 - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds
G in the account
*** ***
y-
*** Provided that nothing contained in this section shall /
~

apply unless-.
H
SUBODH S. SALASKAR v. JAYPRAKASH M. 691
SHAH & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J]
t (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a A
" period of six months from the date on which it is drawn
or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque,
as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment
of the said amount of money by giving a notice in B
~ writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days
of the receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment c
of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the
case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque,
within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice."
Section 142 of the Act also puts a limitation in the power of the
court to take cognizance of the offences, which reads as under: D
"142 . Cognizance of offences
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974 ) -
E
(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under section 138 except upon a
complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the
case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;
(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date F
on which the cause-of-action arises under clause (c)
... of the proviso to section 138 :
Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be
taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the
complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient G
cause for not making a complaint within such period.
J ..,

-
(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate
or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any
offence punishable under section 138."
H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A 13. As noticed hereinbefore, the proviso appended to
-+
Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act was inserted by the Nego-
tipble Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act, 2002.
14. A complaint petition alleging commission of an offence
B unde.r Section 138 of the Act must demonstrate that the follow-
ing ingredients exist, i.e.: j

(a) a cheque was issued;
(b) the same was presented;
c
(c) but, it was dishonoured;
(d) a notice in terms of the said provision was served on
·the person sought to be made liable; and
(e) despite service of notice, neither any payment was
D
made nor other obligations, if any, were complied
with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the
notice.
[See S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and
E Another (2007) 4 SCC 70, Saro} Kumar Poddar v. State (NCT
of Delhi) and Another (2007) 3 SCC 693 and DCM Financial
Services Ltd. v. J.N. Sareen and Another 2008 (8) SCALE 54]
15. Indisputably, therefore, unless the conditions prece-
dent for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of
F the Act are satisfied, the court will have no jurisdiction to pass
an order in that behalf. /'-
16. We will have to examine the contenticns raised by the
leaned counsel for the parties hereto keeping in view the afore-
G mentioned legal principles in mind. Before, however, we advert
thereto, we may place on record that the averments made in
the complaint petition in regard to service of notice are in the
~
following terms: ..,
"8. I say that the said Bank of the Accused, returned I
H dishonoured Cheque No. 460158 dated 28.09.2000 of
SUBODH S. SALASKAR v. JAYPRAKASH M. 693
SHAH & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J]

Rs. 1,70,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Maheshwari Udyan A
Branch, Mumbai, under Bank remark "NO SUCH
ACCOUNT WITH US". The said remark was given in
handwriting by the Branch Manager of the Bank of India,
Maheshwari Udyan Branch, Mumbai in its Bank Memo
dated 10.01.2001, though in the said Bank Memo at Sr. B
No. 11, it is printed at 11 (b) Account closed and at 11 (c)
no account. This Bank Memo was received by me on
17.01.2001. Attached herewith is Xerox copy of the said
Cheque No. 460158 dated 28.09.2000 of Bank of India,
10.01.2001 and marked thereto as Exhibit "A" thereto c
which are very clear and self-explanatory. I am also
attaching herewith Xerox copy of dishonoured Cheque
No. 460157 dated 06.12.1996 of Rs. 26,900/- of the
Accused drawn on Bank of India, Maheshwari Udyan
Branch, Mumbai and marked it as Exhibit "B'' thereto which
0
speak much more about the Bank account No. 1365 of
the Accused lying with his said Bank.
9. I say that immediately, vide my letter Ref. No. JMS/
SSS/CRIM/01/2001 dated 17.01.2001, I sent demand
notice to the Accused through Speed Post Acknowledgment E
due postal services. Attached herewith is Xerox copy of
the said Demand Notice along with copy of postal speed
post A.O. receipt No. 000271184 - SSPNL 650 dated
19.01.2001 and marked it as Exhibit "C" Colly thereto
which is very clear and self-explanatory. I say that I have F
not yet received Speed Post Acknowledgement Slip with
due acknowledgement thereon from the Accused as to
the receipt of the said Demand notice.
10. I say that with abundant and due precautions with a
view to avoid technicalities, through my advocate, Mr. Sunil G
Bagwe's letter Ref. No. SSB/JMS/BOl/01/2001 dated
05.03.2001 asked for detailed information as to the
reasons given by the Branch Manager, in his Bank memo
dated 10.01.2001. The Branch Manager of the said Bank
Branch of the Accused, after various my approaches, finally H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A given acknowledgement of the receipt of the aforesaid
letter of my advocate on 14.03.2001, attached herewith is
Xerox copy of the said letter and marked jt as Exhibit "D"
thereto which is very clear and self-explanatory. The Branch
Manager of Bank of India, Maheshwari Udyan Branch,
B Mumbai vide his letter Ref. No. MU/ADV/MNl/39/853
dated 14.03.2001, given vague, non-cooperative,
unwilling, ill-wishes reply to my advocate's letter by courier
services on 26.03.2001. Attached herewith is Xerox copy
of the said letter of the Bank of India and marked it as
c Exhibit "E" thereto which is very clear and self-expl~natory."
17. As regards purported commission of an offence un-
der Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, on the part of the
. petitioner, it was alleged:
"16. I say that the aforesaid Cheque which was issued by
D
the Accused in discharge of his debts and liability to me
in full, which were dishonoured by the Bank of the accused
with reason "No such account with us". I say that the Accused
failed and neglected to make payments as per my demand
notice dated 17.01.2001. The Accused has failed and
E neglected to make good attempts for payment of his
dishonoured cheques on receipt of my demand notice,
within the stipulated period as provided under Section
138(c) of the N. I. Act, 1988, therefore.. the Accused has
committed an offence punishable under section 138 read
F with section 141 and section 142 of the N.I. Act 1881 (as
amended) and Section 420 of the l.P.C."
. 18: The cause of action of filing the said complaint was
stated in the following terms:
G "17. I say that the aforesaid cheque of the drawer, the
Accused herein was returned by the Complainant's banker
i.e. the Deccan Merchant Co-op. Bank Ltd. Ghatkopar (E)
Branch, Mumbai 400 077, which is situated within the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and, therefore, this Hon'bie
H . Court is competent to take cognizances of this present
SUBODH S: SALASKAR v. JAYPRAKASH M. 695
SHAH & ANR. [S.S. SINHA, J]
+-
complaint and try the same. The demand notice to the A
Accused was issued within the stipulated period and the
present complaint has been filed within the prescribed
period as provided under Section 142 (b) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended) and, therefore, the
Accused has committed an offence punishable under B
Section 138 read with section 141 and section 142 of the
N. I. Act 1881 (as amended) and Section 420 of the I. P. C.
18. I say that the Accused has drawn Cheque of post dated
in Mumbai with intention to cheat me. Hence, the accused must
have closed his Bank Account No. 1365 of Bank of India, c
Maheshwari Udyan Branch, Mumbai subsequently and now, af-
ter the receipt of my demand notice, the accused has refused
to make the payment of his dishonoured cheques as above in
Mumbai. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain,
try and decide this present complaint. I say that the Accused D
has committed criminal offences under the Negotiable lnstru-
~ ments Act, 1881 (as Amended) and section 420 of the l.P.C.,
within the jurisdiction to take cognizances of the same and try
and decide the said offences."
19. A complaint petition in view of Clause (b) of Section E
142 of the Act was required to be filed within one month from
the date on which the cause of action arose in terms of clause
(c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act which stipulates that
"the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the
said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to F
the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the
receipt of the said notice".
The legal notice admittedly was issued on 17th January,
2001. It was sent by speed post. It was supposed to be served
G
within a couple of days. A bare perusal of the statements made
in paragraph 10 of the complaint petition, as quoted hereinbe-
~ fore, clearly demonstrate that although the actual date of ser-
_, vice of notice was allegedly not known, the complainant pro-
ceeded on the basis that the same was served within a reason-
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 11 S.C.R.

-+
A able period; otherwise in absence of service of notice or
d~emed _service t_hereof, the question of non-compliance of
clau~e (c) of the proviso appended to Section 138 9f the Act
.would not arise and consequently th.e complain~ petition would
not be maintainable .•
B 20. In Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. andAnotherv. Ashoka ...
Alloy Steel Ltd. and Others [(2006) 9 SCC 340], this Court held:
·-
"2. By the impugned order, the High Court has quashed
· the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable
c ·instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") and Section 420
of the Penal Code, on the sole ground that the complaint
was filed two days after the expiry of lim'itation. In the present
case, notice was sent under Section 138 of the Act on 4-
1-1997, which was served on the accused on 10-1-1997,
giving him 15days' time for making payment, whlch expired
D
on 25-1-1997. Cause of action to file the complaint
·accrued on 26.:.1-1997, which day has to be excluded in
computing the period of limitation, as required under
Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the
limitation would be counted from 27-1-1997 and the
E complaint was filed on 26-2-1997, within a period of one
month. fr()m that qate, as such, the same was filed well
within time. We. find that the point is concluded by a
judgryient of this Court in Saketh India Ltd. v. India
Securitfes Ltd. in which case taking into consideration the
F provisions of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, it was
~-
laid down that the day on which cause of action had
accrued has to be excluded for reckoning the period of
limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the
· Act. In the present case, after excluding the day when
G cause of action accrued, the complaint was filed well within
time; as such the High Court was not justified in holding
that there was two days' delay in filing the complaint. For
'f
the foregoing reasons, we 3re of the view that the High
Court was not justified in quashing prosecution of the
respondents."
""'
H
SUBODH S. SALASKAR v. JAYPRAKASH M. 697
SHAH & ANR. [S.S. SINHA, J]
+
21. In terms of the provisions of the General Clauses Act, A
a notice must be deemed to have been served in the ordinary
course subject to the fulfillment of the conditions laid down
therein. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act reads as under:
"27. Meaning of service by post.-Where any Central Act
or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act B
.. authorises or requires any document to be served by post,
whether the expression 'serve' or either of the expression
'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used, then, unless
. a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed
to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and c
posting by registered post, a letter containing the
document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been
effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered
in the ordinary course of post."
D
Thirty days' tlme ordinarily must be held to be sufficient for
~
service of notice. In fact when the service of notice is sought to
be effected by Speed Post, ordinarily the service takes place
within a few days. Even under Order V, Rule 9(5) bf the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, summons is presumed to be served if it
does not come back within thirty days. In a situation of this na- E
tu re, there was no occasion for the Court to hold that service of
notice could not be effected within a period of thirty days.

22, Presumption of service, under the statute, would arise
not only when it is sent by registered post in terms of Section 27 F
of the General Clauses Act but such a presumption may be
raised also under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Even when
a notice is received back with an endorsement that the party
has refused to accept, still then a presumption can be raised as
regards the valid service of notice. Such a notice, as has been
G
held by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in C. C. Alavi Haji v.
Palapetty Muhammed and Another [(2007) 6 SCC 555] should
~· be construed liberally, stating :
1111'4
"17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of
giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of criminal H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

+-
A law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice ~
t
before filing a complaint. 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
8" the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had
made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by ·t
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
c 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 GC Act and Section 114 of the Evidence
Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso
D
would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed
in Bhaskaran case if the "giving of notice" in the context
of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the "receipt
of notice" a trickster cheque drawer would get the
premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting
E different strategies and escape from legal consequences
of Section 138 of the Act."
[Emphasis supplied]
23. The complaint petition admittedly was filed on
F 20.04.2001. The notice having been sent on 17.01.2001, if the
presumption of service of notice within a reasonable time is
raised, it should be deemed to have been served at best within
a period of thirty days from the date of issuance thereof, i.e.,
16.02.2001. The accused was required to make payment !n
G terms of the said notice within fifteen days thereafter, i.e., on or
about 2.03.2001. The complaint petition, therefore, should have
been filed by 2.04.2001.
"f-
24. Ex facie, it was barred by limitation. No application for
condonation of delay was filed. No application for condonation
H
(

SUBODH S. SALASKAR v. JAYPRAKASH M. 699
SHAH & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J]
I!.
of delay was otherwise maintainable. The provisions of the Act A
being special in nature, in terms thereof the jurisdiction of the
court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the
Act was limited to the period of thirty days in terms of the pro-
visa appended thereto. The Parliament only with a view to obvi-
ate the aforementioned difficulties on the part of the complain- B
.>; ant inserted proviso to Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act in
2002. It confers a jurisdiction upon the court to condone the delay.
It is, therefore, a substantive provision and not a procedural one.
The matter might have been different if the Magistrate could
have exercised its jurisdiction either under Section 5 of the Limi- c
tation Act, 1963 or Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Proce-
du re, 1976. The provisions of the said Acts are not applicable. In
any event, no such application for condonation of delay was filed.
If the proviso appended to Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act
contained a substantive provision and not a procedural one, it
D
could not have been given a retrospective effect. A substantive
... law, as it is well-settled, in absence of an express provision, can-
not be given a retrospective effect or retroactive operation.
25. In Madishetti Bala Ramu/ (Dead) By LRs. v: Land Ac-
quisition Officer [(2007) 9 SCC 650], this Court held as under: E
"18. It is not the case of the appellants that the total amount
of compensation stands reduced. If it had not been, we
fail to understand as to how Section 25 will have any
application in the instant case. Furthermore, Section 25
being a substantive provision will have no retrospective F
.. ....
effect. The original award was passed on 8-2-1981:
Section 25, as it stands now, may, therefore, not have any
application in the instant case."
The question is now covered by a judgment of this Court
G
in Anil Kumar Goel v. Kishan Chand Kaura [2008 AIR SCW
295] holding:
r
"8. All laws that affect substantive rights generally operate
prospectively and there is a presumption against their
retrospectivity if they affect vested rights and obligations, H
}---

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

~
,__
A unless the legislative intent is clear and compulsive. Such
retrospective effect may be given where there are express r-
words giving retrospective effect or where the language
used necessarily implies that such retrospective operation
is intended. Hence the question whether a statutory
B provision has retrospective effect or not depends primarily
on the language in which it is couched. If the language is ... _

. clear and unambiguous, effect will have to be given to the
provision is question in accordance with its tenor. If the
language is not clear then the court has to decide whether,
c in the light of the surrounding circumstances, retrospective \

effect should be given to it or not. (See: Punjab Tin Supply
Co., Chandigarh etc. etc. v. Central Government and t-

~ Ors., AIR 1984 SC 87).

9. There is nothing in the amendment made to Section
D 142(b) by the Act 55 of 2002 that the same was intended
to operate retrospectively. In fact that was not even the
~
stand of the respondent. Obviously, when the complaint
was filed on 28.11.1998, the respondent could not have
foreseen that in future any amendment providing for
E extending the period of limitation on sufficient cause being
shown would be enacted."
-~
26. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that
the courts be:low committed a manifest error in applying the pro-
viso to the fact of the instant case. If the complaint petition was
F barred .by limitation, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction
to take cognizance under Section 138 of the Act. The· direction ;. ,/'

to issue surrfmons on the appellant, therefore, being illegal and
without jurisdiction was a nullity.
27. Section 415 of the Indiari Penal Code defines "cheat-
G
ing". The said provision requires: (1) deception of any person,
(it) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to
deliver any prop_erty to.any person or to consent that any person -'(

shall retain any propeiiy,. or- (iii) intentionally inducing that per-
son to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
H
SUBODH S. SALASKAR v. JAYPRAKASH M. 701
SHAH & ANR. [S.S. SINHA, J]
..J'
he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is A
likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, repu-
tation or property. Deception of any person is common to the sec-
ond and third requirements of the provision. [See Oevender Kumar
Sing/a v. Baldev Krishan Sing/a (2005) 9 SCC 15]
28. Noticing the ingredients of cheating, this Court in B
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd. and
Ors., [JT 2008 (1) SC 340], held:
"A bare perusal of Section 415 read with Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code would clearly lead to the conclusion that
fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused c
must be at the inception and not at a subsequent stage.
22. For the said purpose, we may only notice that blank
cheques were handed over to the accused during the period
2000-2004 for use thereof for business purposes but the dispute
D
between the parties admittedly arose much thereafter i.e. in 2005.
In B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharita Bee 2007 (12) SCALE 364,
it was held;
.. , 13. For the purpose of establishing the offence of cheating,
the complainant is required to show that the accused had E
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making
promise or representation. In a case of this nature, it is
p.ermissible in law to consider the stand taken by a party
' ') in a pending civil litigation. We do not, however, mean to
lay down a law that the liability of a person cannot be both F
~
civil and criminal at the same time. But when a stand has
been taken in a complaint petition which is contrary to or
inconsistent with the stand taken by him in a civil suit, it
assumes significance. Had the fact as purported to have
been represented before us that the appellant herein got
G
"''>
the said two rooms demolished and concealed the said
fact at the time of execution of the deed of sale, the matter
..., ,. might have been different. As the deed of sale was
I executed on 30.9.2005 and the purported demolition took
'
place on 29.9.2005, it was expected that the complainant/
H
>---
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

i..
A first respondent would come out with her real grievance in J
the written statement filed by her in the aforementioned suit. ~
She, for reasons best known to her, did not choose to do so.
No case for proceeding against the respondent under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code is therefore, made out.
B
23. Filling up of the blanks in a cheque by itself would not ·~·

amount to forgery. Whereas in the complaint petition,
allegations have been made that it was respondent Nos.
}.._
2 and 3 who had entered into a conspiracy to commit the I
c said offence as indicated hereinbefore, in the counter l

affidavit, it has been alleged that the employees of the
;-
Respondent Company did so."
29. The cheques were post dated ones. Admittedly they r
were issued in the year 1996. They were presented before the
D bank on a much later date. They were in fact presented only on
10.01.2001. When the cheques were issued, the accounts were
operative. Even ass"uming that the account was closed subse- t-
quently the same would not mean that the appellant had an in-
tention to cheat when the postdated cheques were issued. Even
E otherwise the allegations made in the complaint petition, even
if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety do not
disclose commission of an offence under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code. They do not satisfy the ingredients of the i
~
suit provision. It is, therefore, in the fact situation obtaining in (
~

the instant case, difficult to hold that the provisions of Section ,
F
420 of the Indian Penal Code were attracted. ~

30. The court had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment
of the complaint petition at a later stage. Therefore, the High
court was not correct in taking the aforementioned view in the
G facts and circumstances of the present case.
;-
r
31. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judg-
ment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The -f t~
appeal is allowed. f'
~

H S.K.S. Appeal allowed.