Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 151

Summary: - Article 237 bis/A of the Penal Code. Its import: the criminal action prescribed in Article 237 of the same Code shall not be instituted if the victim fails to submit his complaint to the Public Prosecution within four months from the date stated on the cheque if drawn in Kuwait, and within six months if drawn outside Kuwait. An example. - The legislature’s use of the expression “the date stated on the cheque as its date of issuance,” rather than “the date of its issuance.” The drawer’s signature on a blank cheque without completing its remaining particulars does not affect its validity. The reason therefor. The cheque bearing a single date means that it was issued on that date. An allegation that it was drawn on an earlier date is unacceptable. Rule: The first-instance judgment, whose grounds were adopted by the challenged judgment, addressed the appellant’s plea that the criminal action had lapsed because it was not initiated within the legally prescribed period of four months from the cheque’s date, based on the appellant’s failure to enter its due date upon it. It responded: “.... Article (237 bis/A) of the Penal Code provides that ‘The criminal action prescribed in Article 237 of this Code shall not be instituted if the victim fails to submit his complaint to the Public Prosecution within four months from the date stated on the cheque issued, if drawn in Kuwait, and within six months if drawn outside Kuwait and payable therein.’ Examination of the cheque forming the subject of the charge establishes that the date stated therein as a date is 11/4/2013 and that the victim company’s lawyer submitted his complaint concerning this cheque to the Public Prosecution on 23/5/2013. Accordingly, the criminal action was initiated and instituted in accordance with the correct provision of law, rendering the plea raised in this respect unfounded and deserving of rejection. This is not affected by the accused’s contention in his defence that the actual date of issuance of the cheque preceded the date written on it by approximately one year. This matter is clear and evident from the legislature’s use, in the aforementioned provision, of the expression ‘the date stated on the cheque as its date of issuance,’ rather than ‘the date of issuance of the cheque.’ Criminal case law is also settled that the drawer’s signature on a blank cheque without completing its remaining particulars does not affect its validity and indicates that he authorized the beneficiary to complete the missing particulars before presenting it to the drawee bank. Whenever the cheque bears a single date, this indicates that it was issued on that date, and the accused’s allegation that it was drawn on a date earlier than the date it bears is unacceptable ...” This is a sufficient and sound response for rejecting this plea. Accordingly, the appellant’s complaint in this respect is unsound.