The High Court of Bombay at Goa, presided over by Justice Bharat P. Deshpande, addressed the issue of compliance with Section 138(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the case of Shri. Shivnath Suryoba Gaonkar versus The Bicholim Marchant Urban Co-operative Credit Society Pvt. Ltd. The judgment centered around whether the mandatory notice was sent within 30 days of the cheque bounce notification. The court found the notice was dispatched on the 31st day, beyond the statutory period, resulting in acquittal.

• Facts:

  • The petitioner, Shri. Shivnath Suryoba Gaonkar, was accused of issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
  • The complainant received the bank’s dishonor memo on 9.10.2020.
  • The demand notice, dated 6.11.2020, was actually posted on 9.11.2020, which was the 31st day.

• Legal Issue:

  • Whether the notice was issued within the statutory period of 30 days as required under Section 138(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Para-wise Main Facts with Headings

1. Case Background:

   • The applicant issued a cheque that was dishonored, leading the respondent to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act​.

2. Legal Requirements of Notice:

   • Section 138(1)(b) mandates that the payee must issue a notice within 30 days from the date of knowledge of cheque dishonor​.

3. Non-Compliance with Notice Period:

   • Evidence showed the notice was dispatched on the 31st day, violating the statutory period, as admitted by the complainant during cross-examination​.

4. General Clauses Act Argument:

   • The complainant argued that since the 30th day was a Sunday, the notice issued on the 31st day (Monday) should be acceptable under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. However, the court rejected this argument due to lack of supporting evidence and failure to explicitly plead for this exemption in the complaint​.

5. Court’s Rationale:

   • The court emphasized that compliance with the 30-day notice period is mandatory and cannot be extended. The failure to send the notice within this period rendered the complaint untenable.

6. Decision and Acquittal:

   • Both the orders from the Magistrate and the Sessions Court were set aside. The applicant was acquitted, and the deposited amount was ordered to be refunded​.

Acts and Sections Discussed

• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
  • Section 138: Addresses penalties for cheque dishonor and outlines the requirement for a written notice to be sent within 30 days.
  • Section 138(1)(b): Specifics regarding the timeframe for issuing the demand notice.
• General Clauses Act, 1897:
  • Section 10: Computation of time when the last date falls on a public holiday. The court clarified that this provision did not apply as the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence or plead accordingly​.

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment lies in the interpretation of Section 138(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court reaffirmed that the 30-day period for issuing a demand notice is mandatory and cannot be extended through provisions of the General Clauses Act without adequate pleading and proof.