Holding

The six‑month period is to be reckoned from the date mentioned on the face of a post‑dated cheque, which becomes a cheque on that date.

Summary

Ashok Yeshwant Badave issued a post‑dated cheque dated 20‑Jan‑1996 as part of a sale transaction. The cheque was presented on 7‑Jul‑1996, within six months of the date on the cheque, and was dishonoured. The complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 IPC. The trial court, Sessions Court and High Court upheld the prosecution. The appellant contended that the six‑month period for presentation should be counted from the date the cheque was actually drawn (10‑Nov‑1995), not from the date printed on it, and therefore no offence was made out. The Supreme Court held that a post‑dated cheque is a bill of exchange until its date, becomes a cheque on the date printed, and the six‑month period under proviso (a) to Section 138 is reckoned from that date. Consequently, the prosecution was valid and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The period of six months for presenting a cheque to the bank under proviso (a) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – whether it is to be calculated from the date on the face of a post‑dated cheque or from the earlier date when the cheque was drawn.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 420
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138, s. 139, s. 140, s. 19, s. 5, s. 6

Subjects

post‑dated chequeSection 138Negotiable Instruments Actsix months presentation periodbill of exchangecriminal liability

Judgment

A ASHOK YESHWANTBADAVE
v.
SURENDRA MADHAVRAO NIGHOJAKAR AND ANR.

MARCH 14. 2001

B [K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETIDAND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section !38, p1Vviso (a)-Appellant
issued a post-dated cheque }Vhiclz H'Os dishonoured 1vithin six 1nonths ftvm the
date menlioned therein-Ilia/ Court took cognizance and issued process-
C Sessions Court did not inteifere with the order and the same was upheld by
High Court-On appeal Held, a post-dated cheque is a bill of exchange and
becomes a cheque on the date mentioned therein-In airier to prosecute the
drawer for an offence, the period of six months has to be reckoned from the
date mentioned on the cheque-No g1vund made out to quash p1vceedings.

D Words and Phrases-Meaning of "Post-dated cheque" in the context of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881-Sections 5 and 6.

Appellant had issued a post-dated cheque on 10.11.95 hearing the
date as 20.1.96 as part of consideration under an agreement to sell ex-
ecuted between the parties. The cheque was presented before expiry of six
E months from 20.1.96 and the same was dishonoured.

Trial Court took cognizance and issued process against the appellant
unde Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Sessions.Court
refused to interfere with the order and the same was upheld by the High
Court. Hence this appeal.
F
Appellant contended that no offence under Section 138 has been
made out as the cheque was presented after a period of six months from
the date of issuance of the cheque.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD : 1. The object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881 appears to be to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking opera-
tions and credibility in transacting business of negotiable instruments.
Despite civil remedy, it intends to prevent dishonesty on the part of the
H drawer of negotiable instruments to draw a cheque without sufficient
426
- ...
ASHOK YESHWANT BADAVE v. S.M. NIGHOJAKAR 427
funds in his account maintained by him in a hank and induces the payee or A
holder in due course to act upon it. [430-F]

2. The concept of post-dated cheque was well known even in common
law and it was in effect a bill of exchange payable on demand with a post
date upon which the demand was to be made. A bare perusal of Sections 5
& 6 of the Act shows that a bill of exchange is a negotiable instrument in B
writing containing an instruction to a third party to pay a stated sum of
money at a designated future date or on demand. However, a 'cheque' is a
bill of exchange drawn on a bank by the holder of an account payable on
demand. Under Section 6 of the Act a 'cheque' is also a bill of exchange but
it is drawn on a banker and payable on demand. A bill of exchange c
eventhough drawn on a banker, if it is not payable on demand, it is not a
cheque. A 'post-dated cheque' is not payable till the date which is shown
thereon arrives and will become cheque on the said date and prior to that
date the same remains bill of exchange. [432-C; 436-D-E]

Jiwanlal Achariya v. Rameshwarlal Agarwal/a, AIR (1967) SC 1118, D
relied on.

Da Silva v. Fuller. Sel. Ca, 238 M.S.; Emannel v. Robarts, [1868] 9 B &
S 121; Bullv. O'Sullivan LR., 6 Q.B. 209; Gatty v. Fry, 2Ex.D. 265; Palmer,
[1882] 19 Chancery Division 409; Hinchcliffe v. The Ballarat Banking Com-
E
pany I. V.R. (L) 229; Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham, (1894) LXX 1 Law
limes Report 168; Pollock v. Bank of New Zealand, [1902] XX New Zealand
Law Reports 174; Aylmer M. Keyes v. The Royal Bank of Canada, [1947]
SCR 377; Brien v. Dwyer & Anr., [1979] 53 Australian Law Journal Reports
123, referred to.
F
Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. (Reissue) Vol. 3(1) at p. 143;
Chalmers & Guest on Bills of Exchange, Cheq11es and Promissory Notes, 15th
Ed. At p. 74; The Law and Practice Relating to Banking, F.E. Perry at pages
137 & 138; Thomsons Dictionary ofBanking 12th Ed. at p. 463, referred to.

3. For prosecuting a person ror an offence under Section 138 of the G
Act, it is inevitable that the cheque is presented to the hanker within a
period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the
period of its validity whichever is earlier. When a post dated cheque is
written or drawn, it is only a bill of exchange and so long the same remains
a bill of exchange, the provisions of Section 138 do not apply to the said H
'ill
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A instrument. The post-dated cheque becomes a cheque within the meaning
of Section 138 of the Act on the date which is written thereon and the 6
months period has to be reckoned for the purposes of proviso (a) to Section f
138 ofthe Act from the said date. [436-G]

Anil Kumar Saw/mey v. Gulshan Ra~ [1993) 4 SCC 424, affirmed.
B
4. There is no ground to quash the prosecution of the appellant as the
cheque was presented before the banker within a period of six months
from the date mentioned on it. [437-B]

C CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 293
of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2000 of the Bombay High
Court in Cr!.W.P. No. 1429 of 2000.

D M.D. Adkar, S.D. Singh and Vishwajit Singh for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.N. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.

E Challenge in this appeal has been made to judgment passed by the
Bombay High Court dismissing writ application filed by the appe!lant uphold-
ing an order passed by a Sessions Court in revision refusing to interfere with
the order passed by a Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing
process against the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the
F Negotiable Instrnments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

Surendra Madhavrao l'jighojkar - respondent No. I filed a petition of
complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara on 2.9.1996 for >-·
prosecution of the appellant under Section 138 of the Act besides Section 420
of the Penal Code which was registered as Criminal Case No. 11348/96. Case
G of the complainant in, short, is that on 4.7.1993 an agreement to sell was
executed by the complainant for sale of his I/3rd share in CTS No. 189 within
Pratapganj Peth in the district of Satara for Rs. 2,21,000 and the said sale
was required to be executed in the name of mother and wife of the appellant.
At the time· of agreement, Rs. 50,000 was paid by the accused to the
H complainant. Thereafter on 10.11.1995 sale deed was scribed and on that date
ASHOK YESHWANT BADAVE v. S.M. NIGHOJAKAR [B.N. AGRAWAL. J.] 429
a further sum of Rs. 1,25,000 was paid by the accused to the complainaot A
\ besides a post-dated cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Satara Braoch,
for Rs. 46,000 bearing the date as 20.1.1996 which was made over by the
accused to the complainaot. Later on, the accused on several occasions made
a request to the complainaot for not presenting the cheque in the bank as he
was not having sufficient funds in his bank account which request was
B
acceded to by the complainaot. Ultimately, as the period of six months was
going to expire on 19.7.1996, the complainaot had no option but to present
the said cheque before his banker for encashment, but the same was returned
without clearance on 11-7-1996 with the endorsement "account closed". From
these facts complainaot deduced that the accused had deceived him which
necessitated issuaoce of notice by the complainant to the accused on 22. 7.1996 c
which was refused by him on 6.8.1996 whereafter the present complaint was
filed.

Upon the filing of petition of complaint, the complainant was examined
on solemn affirmation and by order dated 2.9.1996 the Magistrate took
cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and issued process D
against the accused. The said order having been unsuccessfully challenged
by the accused before the Sessions Court as well as the High Court, the
present appeal by special leave is before us.

Prosecution of the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the
E
Act has been assailed on the sole ground that even if the facts disclosed in
the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, no offence
at all much less the offence under Section 138 of the Act is made out as one
of the conditions precedent for its applicability is that cheque must be
presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which
it was drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier, but in F
the case on haod the cheqne was presented before the banker for encashment
after expiry of six months from the date it was made over by the accused
to the complainaot, though within a period of six months from the date
mentioned on the cheque. As such, the question which arises for our
consideration is: G
"whether period of six months for presentation of cheque to the
banker, as required under proviso (a) to Section 138 of the Act, should
be reckoned from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque or a
date previous to that when it was made over by the drawer to the
drawee. H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.CR.
A The question posed is no longer res integra as the same is concluded
by a two Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar -f
Sawhney v. Gulshan Rai, [1993] 4 SCC 424 wherein in similar circumstances
it was laid down by this Court that post-dated cheque shall be deemed to have
been drawn on the date it bears aod not the previous date on which it was
made over by the drawer to the drawee, but as the matter has been placed
B
before this three Judge Bench, we find it expedient to consider the. same.

In the original Act, Chapter XVII contained two sections: Section 138
was related to power to appoint Notary Public aod Section 139 dealt with
power to make mies for Notary Public. But with the introduction of the
c Notaries Act, 1952 making elaborate provision for appointment of Notaries
and their duties, functions, etc., the aforesaid provision became redundant and
consequently by Section 16 of the Notaries Act, 1952, Sections 138 and 139
were repealed and thereby Chapter XVII was abolished w.e.f. 14th Febrnary,
1956. However, Chapter XVII has been re-introduced in the Act by Section
4 of the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments
D Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 66 of 1988) with effect from 1.4.1989
with a new nomenclature for the Chapter: "Of Penalties in case of Dishonour
of certain Cheques for insufficiency of Funds in the Accounts". This new
Chapter contains five sections, namely, Sections 138 to 142 which are
altogether different from old Sections 138 and 139. The object of bringing
E Section 138 by the aforesaid amending Act on the Statute appears to be to
inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in
transacting business of negotiable instruments. Despite civil remedy, Section
138 intends to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable
instruments to draw a cheque without sufficient funds in his account main-
tained by him in a bank aod induces the payee or holder i.n due course to
F
act npon it.

Relevant portion of Section 5 and the provisions of Sections 6, 19, 138, ,_-
139 and 140 of the Act may be quoted hereunder:-

"S.5. Bill of exchange.- 'Bill ofExchange' is an instrument in writing
G
containing an unconditional order, signed by the maker, directing a
certain person to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order
of, a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument. ................... "

"S.6. Cheque. - A 'cheque' is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified
H banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand."
ASHOK YESHWANT BADAVE v. S.M. NIGHOJAKAR [B.N. AGRAWAL. J.] 431

"S.19. Instruments payable on demand.- A promissory note or bill of A
exchange, in which no time for payment is specified, and a cheque,
t are payable on demand.

"S.J 38.- Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc., of funds in the
account.- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account
maintained by hi.m with a banker for payment of any amount of B
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 c
agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have
committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other
provisior. of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the
amount of the cheque, or with both.
D
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; E

(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 fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and F

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the
said ammmt 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.
G
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, 'debt or other
liability' means a legally enforceable debt or other liability."

(emphasis added)

"S.139.- Presumption in favour of holder.- It shall be presumed, H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r200112 s_c_R_
A unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the
cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in
whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. f

S.140. - Defence which may not be allowed in any prosecution under
Section 138.- It shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence
B under Section 138 that the drawer had no reason to believe when he
issued the cheque that the cheque may be dishonoured on presentment
for the reasons stated in that section."

The concept of post-dated cheque was well known even in common
law and it was in effect a bill of exchange payable on demand with a post
c date upon which -the demand was to be made. As far back as in 1776 and
while the Law of Merchant was then in process of formation, it was held in
Da Silva v. Fuller, Se!. Ca.238 M.S. referred to in Chitty on Bills of
Exchange, 11th Edition, (188) that a banker was not justified in paying a post-
dated cheque before its actual date. In 1868 nearly a hundred years later, the
D Court of Queen's Bench in Emanuel v. Robarts, (1868) 9_B.&S. 121 observed
that a banker was justified in refusing 'payment of a post-dated cheque before
its due date and that the custom of banker to do so was a part of the contract
between the banker aud the customer. In Bull v. O'Sullivan, L.R. 6 Q.B.209
the Court laid down that a post-dated cheque payable to order was an
instrument payable to order on demand on its date. Later, in 1877 in Gatty
E
v. Fry, 2 Ex.D. 265 the CoUit held that a post-dated cheque is not payable _;
on the day it is issued but on the day of its date. All these.cases were decided
before the law was codified in England by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882.
After passing of the aforesaid Act, in the case of Palmer, (1882) 19 Chancery
Division 409, it has been decided by the Court of Appeal that a post-dated
F cheque was equivalent to a bill of exchange payable on a future date, namely,
the date of the cheque. In lhe case of Hinchcliffe v. The Ballarat Banking
Company, I V.R. (L) 229, lhe Court determined the exact point in question
in the present case against the bank, holding lhat a post-dated cheque is a
bill of exchange payable at a future date and that ihe banker may be liable
G to an action by the customer for negligence if he pays such cheque before
the day it bears date.

In the high authority of Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham, (1894)
LXXl Law Times Reports 168 similar question was subject matter of
consideration before the Court of Appeal in which Lord Esher, M.R., after
H due consideration observed thus:-
ASHOK YESHWANT BADAVE v. S.M. N!GHOJAKAR [B.N. AGRAWAL, J.] 433
"A cheque is a contract between the parties, and it is for a Judge at A
the trial to .constrne that contract by reading what is written upon it.
t
Reading this cheque, upon its face it is dated the 10th August, and
is payable to order. What is the trne constmction of that contract upon
reading it? It is simply an order to pay 2501 upon demand. It is said
· that this is not the proper constmction under the circumstances,
B
because the cheque. was signed on the 3rd Augnst, and handed over
to th~ payee upon the 8th August, being dated the 10th August. It is
sajd that the cheque was, therefore, a post-dated cheque. Upon those
facts Lcing proved before the Judge, what ought he to" do? Must he
say that, in construing this written document, because it was handed
over before the day of the date wtitten upon it, he must put a different C
construction upon it and say that it is not a bill payable upon deman(i, .
but a bill payable two days after the day of its issue or negotiation?
I have never heard of a cheque being so construed, and tlie argnment
of the appellant is entirely fal!acious ..... lt is not denied tha~ by the
Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, a post dated cheque is not made D
invalid; ... ,.The objection as to post-dating a cheque is therefore now
an obsolete and useless objection. If a cheqne is dealt with as a bill
of exchange before the date which it bears, then it becomes a bill of
exchange in the ordinary sense; but it is not in any way an escrow.
All the defences and objections arc futile and must fail."
E
In the case of Pollock v. Bank of New 'Zealand, (1902) XX New
Zealand Law Reports 174, the Court of Appeal was considering a case where
bank had paid a post dated cheque before expiry of its date and thereafter
dishonoured another cheque of its customer presented before the date of the
post- dated cheque on the ground that after payment of the post-dated cheque,
F
there were no fonds to honour another cheque and consequently the same was
dishonoured which necessitated filing of a suit by the customer for damages.
The suit was decreed and when the matter was taken in appeal, the Court
of Appeal while upholding the same observed thus:-

"The bank, by paying the post-dated cheque before its actual date,
G
wrongfully debited its amount against the plaintiffs account. Bnt for
tliat debit there would have been sufficient funds to meet the cheque
for Pound 38 !ls., a cheque which the bank ought to have paid, bnt
which they, in breach of their duty to the plaintiff, dishonoured. The
plaintiff is therefore· entitled to damages for the wrongful dishonour
of this cheque." H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A In the case of Aylmer M. Keyes v. The Royal Bank of Canada, [1947] SCR
377, the Supreme Court of Canada was considering a case where payment
of a post-dated cheque was made before the date of issue due to oversight.
Thereafter !he <lrawer countermanded payment of the cheque at the opening
of business on the day of the date of cheque. lhls necessitated filing of a
suit by the drawer against the bank for realisation of the payments erroneously
B
made by the bank under post-dated cheque. The suit was decreed by the trial
court but on appeal being preferred the Supreme Court of Alberta in its
Appellate Division dismissed the suit by allowing the appeal whereafter on
special leave to appeal being granted, the matter was taken in appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada which set aside the appellate judgment and restored
c that of the trial court decreeing the suit and held that before the date of issue
of the cheque the bank was not justified in honouring the same.

In the case of Brien v. Dwyer & Anr., [1979] 53 Australian Law Journal
Reports 123, the matter was considered by the High Court of Australia and
it was laid down that a post-dated cheque was a bill of exchange payable at
)..
D a future date.

In Halsbury's !11Ws of England, 4th Edition (Reissue) Volume 3(1), at
page 143, procedure to be adopted by the bank in relation to post-dated
cheque has been enumerated which reads thus:-
E
"Post-dated cheques are not invalid, but the banker should not pay
such a cheque if presented before the date it bears. If, therefore, a
cheque dated on a Sunday is presented on the previous business day,
it should be returned with the answer 'post- dated'. A post-dated
cheque, however, if presented at or after its ostensible date, should
F be paid though the banker knows it to be post-dated, and even if it
has been presented before the date and refused payment."

In Chalmers & Guest an Bills of Exchange, Cheques and Promissory
Notes, 15th Edition, at page 74, !he concept of 'post- dated cheques' has been
G explained as under:-

"Post-dated cheques. Cheques are often issued post-dated, that is to
say, bearing a date later than that on which they are in fact issued.
The purpose of issuing a post- dated cheque is to prevent the drawee
banker from paying the cheque to the payee or a holder before the
H date written on the cheque. It is clear that the instrument is a cheque
ASHOK YESHWANT BADAVE v. SM. NIGHOJAKAR [B.N. AGRAW'>L. J.] 435
once the date written on it anives. But its status is unclear prior to A
t that date. It is arguable that, between the. date of its issue and the date
written on the cheque, it is not payable on demand and so cannot be
a cheque but an instrument of a different kind. The view has been
expressed that: 'so far as regards its practical effect, a post-dated
cheque is the same thing as a bill of exchange at so many days' date
B
as intervene between the day of delivering the cheque and the date
marked upon the cheque'. It has also been stated that the effect of
issuing a post-dated cheque is equivalent to giving a promissory note
not payable until the date written on the cheque."

In Thomson's Dictionary of Banking, 12th Edition, at page 463 'post- C
dated' has been defined as follows:-

"Post-dmed. -A cheque which is dated subsequent to the actual date
on which it is drawn, and which is issued before the date it bears. is
called a post-dated cheque.
D

A post-dated cheque should not be paid before the date appea1ing
thereon ...

A cheque presented for payment before the date has anived
should be returned marked 'post-dated' "
E

F.E. Perry in The law and practice relating to banking : 1, at pages
137 & 138 has dealt with 'post-dated cheque' as under:-

"A cheque must not be post dated, !hat is, dated after the day on which
it is presented for payment to the drawee branch. Postdated cheques F
present far more difficulties to the banker than antedated cheques:
they are practical difficulties rather than legal oues .... But a cheque is
generally post dated because the drawer does not expect to have the
funds to meet it until that date anives. It is a mandate to the banker
to the effect that it should not be paid before that date arrives." G
In the case of Jiwanlal Achariya v. Rameshwarlal Aganvalla, AIR
(1967) SC 1118, a cheque dated 25th February, 1954 was delivered on 4th
February, 1954 and encashed soon.after 25th February, 1954. This Cowt was
considering the question of payment envisaged within the meaning of Section
20 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 and delivering the majority judgment, H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A Wanchoo, J., speaking for himself and J.C. Shah, J., observed thus:-
1
"Where, therefore, the payment is by cheque and is conditional, the
mere delivery of the cheque on a particular date does not mean that
the payment was made on that date unless the cheque was accepted
as unconditional payment. Where the cheque is not accepted as an
B unconditional payment, it can only be treated as a conditional
payment. In such a case the payment for purposes of S. 20 would be
the date on which the cheque would be actually payable at the earliest,
assuming that it will be honoured ..... As the payment was conditional
it would only be goot,l when the cheque is presented on the date it
c bears, namely, February 25," 1954 and is honoured. The earliest date,
therefore, on which the respondent could have realised the cheque
which he had received as conditional payment on February 4, 1954
was the 25th February, 1954 if he had presented it on that date and
it had been honoured."

D From a bare perusal of Sections 5 & 6 of the Act it would appear that
bill of exchange is a negotiable instrument in writing containing an instruction
to a third parry to pay a stated sum of money at a designated future date or
on demand. On the other hand, a 'cheque' is a bill of exchange drawn on
a bank by the holder of an. account payable on demand. Under Section 6 of
the Act a 'cheque' is also a bill of exchange but it. is drawn on a banker and ~·
E
payable on demand. A bill of exchange even though drawn on a banker, if
it is not payable on demand, it is not a cheque. A 'post-dated cheque' is
not payable till the date which is shown thereon arrives and will become
cheque on the said date and prior to that date the same remains bill of
exchange.
F
For prosecuting a person for an offence under Section 138 of the Act,
it is inevitable that the cheque is presented to the banker within a period of
six inonths from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its
validity whichever is earlier. When a post dated cheque is written or drawn,
it is only a bill of exchange and so long the same remains a bill of exchange,
G the provisions of Section 138 are not applicable to the said instnunent. The
post-dated cheque becomes a cheque within the meaning of Section 138 of i
the Act on the date which is written thereon and the 6 months period has
to be reckoned for the purposes of proviso (a) to Section 138 of the Act from )"
the said date. Thus while respectfully agreeing with the law laid down by this
H Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sawhney, we hold that six months period
ASHOK YESHWANTBADAVE v. S.M.NIGHOJAKAR [B.N. AGRAWAL, J.] 437
- shall be reckoned from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque and not A
t any earlier date on which the cheque was made over by the drawer to the
drawee.

In the case on hand, the cheque was prepared and made over by the
drawer to the drawee on 10.11.1995 but the date mentioned thereon was
20.1.1996 and it was presented before the banker for encashment on 7.7.1996, B·
i.e., within a period of six months from 20.1.1996. Thus we find no ground
to quash prosecution of the appellant as, on the facts alleged, an oJ!~nce ll11der
Section 138 of the Act is clearly made out. · ·'.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
c
A.Q. Appeal dismissed.