JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. A couple, Deepak Kumar and Smt. Nirmala, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.(herein in after referred to as the Code) and have preferred this criminal Misc. Application No. 7056 of 2005, with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.9.04, by which the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Ghaziabad has summoned them for committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, (herein after referred to as the Act) in complaint case No. 7136 of 2004, Rajbir Singh v. Deepak Kumar and Ors. The ancillary prayer is for stay of the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case pendent Lite.
2. The encapsulated facts of the case, as is perceptible from the complaint (Annexure No. 4), filed by complainant Rajbir Singh respondent No. 2 are that the complainant is an employee of Air Force and Kishan Lal, father of the applicant No. l Deepak Kumar, was his neighbour and was serving as a civil defence personnel. Applicant No. 2 Smt. Nirmala is the wife of Deepak Kumar. Being neighbour and persons connected with defense a close friendship and intimacy developed between the applicants and the complainant. As a result of the said intimacy between the two, the applicants took a loan of Rupees 1 lac from the complainant Rajbir Singh, respondent No. 2 on 12.4.04 with a promise to repay it within six months. A receipt cum agreement annexure No. l, was executed on a stamp paper to this effect on 12.4.04 itself. A cheque, dated 10.7.04, being cheque No. 087411 from Account No. 116, of Punjab and Sindh Bank, Sector 19 NOIDA, was also issued by the applicants as a guarantee on the said loan, on the condition that if, the loan amount was not paid within the stipulated period of time then the complainant was free to realise the loan amount by presenting the said cheque in the bank for encashment. As the applicants failed to repay the loan amount within the stipulated period the complainant, left with no other option to realize his money, deposited the said cheque for encashment on 13.7.2004 in his Syndicate Bank, Air Force Station, Hindon, Ghaziabad branch. Syndicate Bank returned the said cheque, bounced and dishonoured to the complainant, alongwith a memo dated 15.7.04, which were received to him on 16.7.04. The memo indicated that the cheque had bounced because of "funds insufficient". The complainant, thereafter, made several requests to the applicant accused for payment of his loan amount but it was all in vain. Consequently, the complainant gave a legal notice on 26.7.04 under Section 138 of N.I. Act (annexure No. 2) to the applicants accused through his counsel Sri Jai Singh Bhadoria, Advocate. It was sent through courier service DTDC vide annexure No. 3. Inspite of service of notice, since, the applicants did not pay the demanded amount of cheque, the complainant, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.) Ghaziabad on 30.8.04 being complaint case number 7136 of 2004 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicants accused. Along with the complaint he filed photocopies of the agreement, original copy of the cheque issued by applicants, copy of notice and four courier receipts. The trial court took cognizance of the offence, recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 13.8.04, (annexure No. 5) and thereafter, vide order-dated 16.9.04, summoned the accused applicants for offence under
3. Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide annexure No. 6. Aggrieved by their summoning order the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the accused applicants with the prayer to quash the same. Complainant respondent No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit in this application.
4. I have heard Sri Manu Yadav, advocate , learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Nitin Gupta, learned Counsel for the complainant respondent No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. in opposition at a great length and have gone through the record of the case. As agreed between the contesting parties this application is being finally heard and is being disposed off at the admission stage itself by this order.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that no offence is made out against the applicants as it is not mentioned in the complaint and in statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as to on what date the notice notices alleged to have been sent through DTDC courier service was served on the applicants. He further contended that it is not clear from the complaint as to whether a joint notice or a single notice was sent under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the complainant to the two applicants and who had received the said notice notices. Therefore, he submitted that no offence is made out against the applicants as it is not known as to on what date, the offence is made out in absence of the date of service of notice on the applicants. He also submitted that once the notice has been sent by a private courier there can not be any presumption under Section 114 of Evidence Act read with Section 27 of The General Clauses Act of service of notice on the applicants. He further contended that the complaint was pre mature and, therefore also, no offence is made out against the applicants. He further contended that the present complaint has been filed with malicious intention only for the purpose of harassment.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 along with learned AGA, contrarily, contended that the notice were served on the applicants and the complaint is not pre mature as fifteen days had lapsed before the complaint was filed in the court. They further argued that if, the notice is sent by courier service then the service on the applicants must be presumed as the notice had not been received back by the complaint. They further argued that since the contentions raised at the bar by the applicants are factual and relates with the merit of the case therefore the prosecution must be allowed to proceed and it can not be nip into the bud at this stage.
7. Cogitating over the rival submissions canvassed at the bar and for a proper appreciation of the same, the ingredients for making out an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is to be brought forth. Section 138 of N.I. Act provides:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for (a term which may be extended to two years), or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within 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 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 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.
Explanation-For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
8. Thus, for making out an offence under Section 138 of the Act following ingredients are essential. In seriatim, they are registered here as: (i) that a person must have an operative account in any bank(ii) he owns some debt or liability to any other person whether juristic legal, or not (Hi) a cheque is issued in the name of that person, to whom the debt or liability is owned by the account holder, from his such operative account in the bank, for the satisfaction of, whole or part payment, for the said debt or liability. (Such person who issues the cheque is called "drawer" of the cheque and the person in whose name the cheque is issued is called the "drawee" of the cheque.)(iv) the said cheque is presented by the person in whose name it is issued (drawee)or the holder of the cheque, in the bank for it's encashment with the period of it's validity or within six months of the date of it's issuance noted on the cheque (v) the bank had returned the said cheque unpaid or dishonoured or uncashed because of 'insufficiency of funds', with what ever terminology used by the bank for the said dishonour because of insufficiency of funds in the account from which the cheque had been issued by the drawer (vi) the person in whose name the cheque was issued (drawee) or holder in due course of the said cheque gives a notice, in writing, to the person who has issued the cheque (drawer)with a period of thirty days, from the date of receipt of the notice of dishonoured / unpaid cheque from the bank, demanding the payment of the amount of cheque, with or without other prayers for damages or interest thereon (vii) the notice of demand is served on the person who had issued the cheque (drawer) (viii) the drawer does not make the payment to the payee or drawee within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice on him and the amount of cheque remains unpaid (ix) the complaint is laid in court within one month, after expiry of period of fifteen days from the date of service of notice on the drawer/payer (emphasis supplied). These requirements listed above are sine qua non for making out an offence under Section 138 of the Act. In the event of absence of any of the above mentioned, necessary requirements, the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not made out. Thus, for making out an offence under 138 N.I. Act, four dates are very relevant to be mentioned in the complaint or at least they should be clear from the papers filed along with the filing of the complaint itself. These dates are (i) date mentioned on the cheque (ii) date of it's deposite in the bank for encashment( For knowing it's period of validity), the date on which the notice/memo advice from the bank was received by the drawee/payee or holder of the cheque regarding it's bouncing because of insufficiency of funds by using any phraseology for the same (for determining the period of notice, which is one month, from such a date), the date of notice given by the drawee/ payee to the drawer/ payer of the cheque (to determine fifteenth day so as to bring "cause of action " to life, in case the cheque money is not paid during, this period), the date on which the said notice is received or served to the drawer/ payer of the cheque( to determine the date on which the offence is made out, in case the cheque money is not paid with fifteen days of the service of the notice) and lastly, the date of filing of the complaint (for determining the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation and complaint not being time barred). If, these dates are not perceptible from the complaint or papers accompanying it then the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act (emphasis supplied.)
9. Now the case of the complainant is to be judged in view of rival contentions raised at the bar and pleadings made herein in the application and counter affidavit on the above ingredients for making out offence under Section 138 N.I. Act.
10. Pondering over the rival contentions, I find that there is substance in the submissions raised by the counsel for the applicant. As a fact, neither in the-complaint, nor in statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C nor in the counter affidavit any date of service on notice demanding re-payment of cheque money from the applicants is mentioned. No document was also appended along with the complaint so as to indicate the said date. Even during the course of argument, the counsel for the respondent complainant could not point out the date of service of such notice. Thus, in the total absence of date of service of notice demanding payment of the cheque amount, no offence is made out against the applicants. Moreover, it cannot be said that any such notice was ever served on the applicants and consequently fifteen days period for making the payment of the cheque money can not be counted and unless that is done no offence is made out against the applicants. The contention of respondent complainant that the service is to be presumed also can not be accepted because Section 27 of General Clauses does not takes into it's purview service by private courier. For a proper under standing of this submission Section 27 of The General Clauses Act is quoted below:
Meaning of Service by post- where any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "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 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.
11. Thus, the wordings of Section 27 of The General Clauses Act clearly indicates that this section deals only with service by 'Post' and that too "registered service" when such a service is contemplated by the Act itself. Attour, no other mode of service is embraced in Section 27. The condition precedent for the applicability of this section are firstly, that the service must be provided by the Act itself and secondly, that such "service shall be deemed to be affected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post" (Emphasis mine). Unless the twin conditions are satisfied, Section 27 of The General Clauses Act will not apply. In the present case the second condition is not satisfied and therefore the service of notice on the applicants cannot be presumed. Since the legislature has kept service by private courier out side the purview of the Section 27 of The General Clauses Act, therefore the courts can not implant such presumption of service into that section and rightly so because private courier services are privately run businesses without any authenticity of service, (emphasis mine). Consequently, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the service should be presumed in the present case cannot be accepted as it does not hold good on the provision of the statute itself and has to be rejected. Resultantly, the submission of the counsel for the applicant that in the present case no offence is made out holds good and deserves to be accepted and I hold so.
12. Summing up from the discussions made above, since, no offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is made out against the applicants, in absence of date of service of notice of demand on them their summoning order dated 16.9.04 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad, in complaint case number 7136 Of 2004 Rajbir Singh v. Deepak Kumar and Anr., under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, cannot be allowed to stand and has to be quashed and I order so.
13. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 16.9.04 passed in complaint case No. 7136 of 2004 Rajbir Singh v. Deepak Kumar and Anr., under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad against the applicants is quashed.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for it's intimation and further action as it's end.