Running head: CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN

Kathmandu University School of Management

Final Report

Case: Cheque Dishonor

Maheshwor Lal Vs Bishnu Maharjan

Submitted to -

Mr. Sharan Shankar Paudel

Faculty of Corporate Law

Submitted by - Group B

Anshu Ghimire 177033

Kshitiz Shrestha 177099
Kusang Chutin Sherpa 177094
Pragati Karki 177039
Pratibha Bhatta 177010
Salil Raj Shakya 177095
Shachee Shrestha 177105
BBA, Year III, Semester II

Date - June 15, 2020

 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 1

Table of Contents

Background and Summary 3

Background 7

Summary of Plaintiff's claim 7

Summary of Defendant's response 5

Analysis 6

Analysis of Plaintiff 7

Analysis of Defendant 7

Comment on Verdict 10

Recommendation 12

Conclusion 14
CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 2
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 3

Background and Summary

Background

This case regarding cheque dishonour involves Maheshswor Lal Shrestha (Plaintiff/

Appellant) against Bishnu Maharjan (Defendant/ Opponent) and was presented in the Supreme

Court under Hr. Judge Mr. Prakash Wasti and Hr. Judge Mr. Bharat Raj Upreti. The writ. No. of

the case is 065-CR-0463 year of 2059 and the verdict of the court was passed on 2069/07/16.

Plaintiff Maheshwor Lal Shrestha is a resident of Sitapaila, Kathmandu, Ward No. 4 and defendant

Bishnu Maharjan is the director of D.M. Brick and Tile Factory Pvt.Ltd. situated in Luvu, Lalitpur,

Ward No. 1.

The case was filed by Maheshwor Lal Shrestha claiming that the cheque which he had

received to clear the opponent’s loan was dishonoured as the account did not have sufficient

amount to cover the payment. The defendant apologised and assured the plaintiff that they will

soon repay the loan. Even after this event, the opponent showed no response to Maheshwar’s

constant reminder to clear the loan. The plaintiff then filed a case against the defendant on the

ground of section 107(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 2034. He wanted the amount granted

as loan along with the interest payment till the date of decision, demanding the payment of the

principal amount along with the interest at 10% pa till the date of the final decision. He also

demanded imprisonment as a punishment.

However, the defendant then pleaded not guilty by claiming that the plaintiff did not follow

the due process as he disregarded the content of section (66) as well as section (103)(a) in

Negotiable Instrument Act, 2034. He argued that he had not received notice of dishonour by the

plaintiff and he requested the court to overrule the claim. Another defendant Mr. Anil Lal Shrestha
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 4

did not submit a reply on the time limit provided by the court. The representative of the defendant

demanded verification of the signature on the cheque as they raised an issue of the signature being

forged. However, the expert who was in charge could not verify as the signature in the cheque had

Bichnu Maharjan’s old signature which could not be presented at the time of verification.

When the case was presented in Kathmandu District Court, the forgery of the signature

could not be proven due to which the judgement was passed in favor of the defendant. It declared

that no responsibility is to be borne by the defendant as claimed by the plaintiff because the claim

of the plaintiff could not stand. Mr. Shrestha was not satisfied with this decision passed by the

District Court and so he appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also affirmed the

decision of the District Court favoring Bishnu Maharjan. Mr. Shrestha was yet dissatisfied by the

decision of the Appellant Court so he made an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court

reinvestigated the case. Finally, the Supreme Court passed the decision in favor of the defendant

and affirmed the claim of the plaintiff observing the acts of the director which was not compatible

with law and legal provision. The Supreme Court also made a decision to recover the total amount

which includes principal and interest calculating NRs. 2478000/- and charged NRs. 1500/- as fine

to the defendants.

Summary of Plaintiff's claim

Plaintiff Maheshwor Lal Shrestha claimed that he had granted a loan of Rs. 12,39000 /- to

Bishnu Maharjan as per the opponent’s demand, considering that the opponent was a familiar face

and there had been such practice of lending and borrowing of money between them in the past.

The plaintiff was assured that the defendant would pay back the money within a month. However,

after the defendant failed to clear the loan within a month as promised and after constant reminders
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 5

by the plaintiff, the opponent gave the plaintiff a cheque from their current account WO 832

Cheque No. c/20/299618 which remained in Rastriya Banijya Bank, Baneshwor. The cheque was

dishonoured because the account did not have sufficient balance to meet the payment. Maheshwor

Lal Shrestha was then assured by the opponents that they would return the loan amount in cash

upon realising that it was their mistake. Even after this event,yet again, the opponents were found

to be dodging their commitment of paying back the loan amount by making excuses and

misguiding the plaintiff. Maheshswor Lal Shrestha sensed their ill intention of not paying back the

loan so he filed suit against Mr. Bishnu Maharjan in Kathmandu District Court, within statute of

limitation, claiming Rs. 12,39,000 /- , the amount he had granted as loan with interest amount of

Rs. 50,420 /- which would be a total of Rs. 1,743,205 /-. In addition, the plaintiff also demanded

interest payment up to the date of decision by the court and imprisonment to the opponent under

section 107(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 2034.

Summary of Defendant's response

Defendant Bishnu Maharjan, director of D.M. Brick and Tile Factory Pvt. Ltd., took a loan

amounting to Rs. 12,39,000 /- and the cheque which contained his signature was dishonoured.

After the plaintiff filed a case in the court, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had disregarded

the due process by not following section 66 and section 103(6) of Negotiable Instrument Act, 2034.

The defendant also denied getting informed by the plaintiff about the cheque dishonour and if

there would be a claim against other directors. Hence, he requested the court to overrule the claim

of the plaintiff and release him from the punishment. Another defendant, Anil Lal Shrestha failed

to submit his reply on the claim that was made against him within the court’s time limit.
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 6

There was also a claim made by the defendant’s representative, Ram Krishna Chitrakar,

that the signature of Bishnu Maharjan has been forged and he requested the court to get it verified.

However, the expert who was in charge of getting the signature verified could not verify as the

signature in the cheque had Bichnu Maharjan’s old signature which could not be presented at the

time of verification.

Analysis

Analysis of Plaintiff

Taking the reference of the section 107 “Determination of Compensation” of Negotiable

Instrument Act, 2034, Maheshwor Lal Shrestha claimed that Bishnu Maharjan is liable to pay the

total amount of Rs. 1,743,205 which,was the principal amount of Rs. 1,239,000 and interest

amount Rs. 50,420. His claim is backed up by the section 64 and 65 of the Negotiable Instrument

Act, 2034. In short the section 64 explains that if the cheque is made default by the drawee, the

cheque is dishonored by non-acceptance, section 65 explains the cheque will be dishonoured by

non-payment when the maker of the note, accepter of the bill or Drawee of the Cheque makes

default in payment upon being duly required to pay the same. These sections back up the claim

made by Maheshwor Lal Shrestha as the cheque provided to him was dishonored by the bank

(Drawee) as there was no sufficient funds in the account of the drawer (Bishnu Maharjan). The

default was made by Bishnu Maharjan when he intentionally gave Maheshwor Lal Shrestha cheque

of the amount that was no way near the amount of money that was present in the account. With his

cheque being dishonored. Using the section 107 (a) “Penalty” of Negotiable Instrument Act, 2034

which states, “In case any person who deliberately transfers a Cheque by drawing it to somebody

that he/she does not bear deposit in the Bank or even if there is a deposit which is not sufficient,
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 7

and if the Cheque thus transferred is dishonoured due to lack of sufficient deposit when the Cheque

is presented to the concerned Bank for the payment, the amount mentioned in the Cheque as well

as interest on it shall be caused to be recovered to the Holder from the Drawer and he/she shall be

punished with an imprisonment up to Three months or a fine up to Three Thousand Rupees or

both.” Maheshwor Lal Shrestha filed the case against Bishnu Maharjan.

Other than that, the claims made by the Maheshwor Lal Shrestha are valid because the

cheque was made by drawer by exclusively signing the cheque and the promise to pay the cheque

is unconditional. The person who is supposed to pay the money and who is supposed to received

the money is clear and certain and the amount of money Bishnu Maharjan is liable to pay i.e NRs.

12,390,00 + interest Rs.504,20 total amount Rs.17,432,05 is justifiable. The due date and the

cheque number i.e. WO 832 Cheque No. c/20/299618 is clearly stated.

Analysis of Defendant

In the case of Maheshwor Lal Shrestha versus Bishnu Maharjan there are two defendant:

Bishnu Maharjan and Anil Lal Shrestha but only Bishnu maharjan has replied to the plaintiff

claim.The defendant in his defense declares the plaintiff claims invalid on the basis of two claims

of section 66 and section 103(6) of Negotiable Instrument Act,2037.

According to section 66 of this act “When a Bill of Exchange is dishonoured by non-

acceptance or non-payment, the Holder thereof, or some party thereto who remains liable thereon,

must give notice to all other parties related to such instrument, and if any party among them has

not been notified such party shall not be liable to that instrument. Provided that, nothing in this

section renders it necessary to give notice of dishonour to the maker of the Promissory Note,

acceptor of the Bill of Exchange or the Drawee”.This means that after the bill of exchange has
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 8

been dishonoured due to nonpayment or non acceptance, the holder of the bill of exchange must

inform the other party related to such instrument at such event otherwise it makes them (other

parties involved in the such instrument ) not liable to that instrument. As stated by the defendant

Mr.Bishnu Maharjan, Mr Maheshwor never informed him of such dishonouring happening, thus

requesting to dismiss plaintiff claims and release him from punishment as per section 66 .As per

section 67 which states the mode of in which notice may be given to the required person may be

oral or written and no such procedure mentioned in this section was followed by the plaintiff.

Moreover section 103 consists of special provision regarding the evidence and as per sub

section 6 of section 103 of this act states that “The Holder of a Negotiable Instrument is a Holder

in due Course.Provided that, the burden of proving that the Holder is a Holder in due Course lies

upon him/her in the following conditions:-Where the Negotiable Instrument has been obtained

from the maker, Drawer or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful

Consideration.”which means if the bill of exchange has been obtained from the drawer

through any form form of offence or fraud or unlawful consideration the holder of course or the

holder is liable for payment themselves .The represnetative of defendants states that the signature

on the cheque was forged thus demanding to verify his signature.

Later,the result presented by Sanu Kanchha Lamichhane was that the signature done is not

forgery and Bishnu Maharjan himself had done the signature.

With Bishnu’s signature being proven not being forged, the defendants argument was weak and

just based on “he said and she said '' unless there is any evidence to prove that Mr Mashwor Lal

Shrestha didn’t inform him about the dishonoured cheque.Thereafter, making Mr Bishnu liable

and Mr Mashwor be entitled to the amount mentioned in as per section 107.

 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 9

Analysis of Verdict

Kathmandu District Court gave their verdict by saying , “It has not seen the due process

for the case followed by the plaintiff before filing a case in court under section 66 of the Act related

to negotiable instruments not for cheque. So, the claim of the plaintiff cannot stand and no

responsibility is to be borne by the defendant as claimed by the plaintiff.” The verdict by the

Kathmandu District court was given in the favor of the defendant, Mr. Bishnu Maharjan.

The court had observed a crucial question as “Whether a filed case with a claim is within

time limit or not? And what are the conditions of dishonoring the cheque? The court affirmed the

case was filed within the time limit before the court according to section 108 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, 2034. However, it has not clearly defined regarding ‘refer to drawer’ in Nepal.

Court observed Indian cases as reference for the interpretation i.e. in the case of mm Malik Vs.

Prem Kumar Goyal II (1991) in their ordinary meaning amounted to a statement by the bank-“we

are not paying, go back to the drawer and ask him why.”

The verdict was in favor of defendant because plaintiff did not follow the procedure of

section 66 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 2034 which states, “When a Bill of Exchange is

dishonored by non-acceptance or non-payment, the Holder thereof, or some party thereto who

remains liable thereon, must give notice to all other parties related to such instrument, and if any

party among them has not been noticed such party shall not be liable to that instrument. Provided

that, nothing in this section renders it necessary to give notice of dishonor to the maker of the

Promissory Note, acceptor of the Bill of Exchange or the Drawee”. Basically, Mr. Bishnu

Maharjan was not pleaded guilty because the court declared that as per Section 66 of the Negotiable
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 10

Instruments Act 2034, the plaintiff, Mr. Maheshwor Lal Shrestha, did not inform the other

directors about the bouncing of cheque; he only informed Mr. Bishnu Maharjan.

Court ordered as per section 107 (a) of the negotiable instrument Act, 2034 which states if

drawer issue cheque to other person and it is presented before bank and it is returned not having

sufficient balance as regard the offence of cheque dishonor. So, the court affirmed the claim of the

plaintiff observing the acts of the director which was not compatible with law and legal provision.

Court made a decision to recover the total amount i.e. principal and interest calculating NRs.

2478000/- and charged NRs. 1500/- as fine to them (defendants).

Furthermore, several precedents and related legal provisions were considered as reference

while giving verdict for this case. Decision number 8367 and decision number 8627, established

as precedents, were taken as reference to take decision on this case.

Comment on Verdict

We fully agree with the verdict of the supreme court to hold Mr. Bishnu Maharjan guilty,

as all the arguments in the case are in favor of the plaintiff - Mr. Maheshowr Lal Shrestha.

To begin with, Mr. Maheshowr Lal Shrestha had filed the case within the legal time frame

of 5 years, so as per section 108 of NIA 2034, the complaint of the plaintiff is valid. Secondly, the

claim of defendant - Mr. Bishnu Maharjan- that Mr. Maheshowr Lal didn’t fulfill the legal

formality and didn’t send him the notice of dishonor as per section 66 and 67 of NIA 2034, became

invalid as the legal requirement stated in NIA 2034, section 107(a), is necessary for negotiable

instrument other than cheque.

 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 11

Further the signature on the cheque has been verified and has matched with that of Mr.

Bishnu Maharjan and it has been proved that the cheque was drawn to make payment to Mr.

Maheshowr Lal Shrestha. This clarifies that Mr. Bishnu Maharjan is the drawer as per section 2(l)

of NIA 2034, who is indebted to pay the loan amount with interest to Mr. Maheshowr Lal Shrestha,

the payee as per section 2(j) of NIA 2034.

Most importantly, while filing a lawsuit against a drawer, the payee needs to have the

receipt or cheque return memo issued by bank and financial institution as an evidence of dishonor.

In this particular case, the plaintiff, Mr. Maheshowr Lal Shrestha has presented such a memo to

the court.

Furthermore, under section 66 of NIA 2034, payee has to give the notice of dishonor to all

parties related to the instrument. And under section 67 of NIA 2034, the notice of dishonor can be

in oral or written form. In this case, the plaintiff, Mr. Maheshowr Lal claims to have notified the

directors verbally, however, no evidence of such notice has been presented in the court.

So with reference to the Indian Act regarding negotiable instrument, past court decisions

on cheque dishonor case and section 107 (A) of the Nepali Negotiable Instrument Act, 2034, the

supreme court has decided that drawer is solely responsible if the cheque is drawn by him but the

payee does not get the desired amount due to insufficiency of funds in the drawee bank.

So considering all the facts, considerations, evidence, and reference to NIA 2034, Indian

Act of Negotiable Instruments and past cases, we fully agree with the verdict of supreme court and

believe that justice has been served to the aggrieved party.

 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 12

Recommendation

The case was fought at 3 levels; District court, Appellate court and the supreme court for

over six years. Kathmandu district court and Appellate court of Patan both gave verdict in favour

of the defendant Mr. Bishnu Maharjan, whereas the Supreme Court of Nepal gave the verdict in

favor of the plaintiff Maheshwar lal Shrestha. Fighting the case three times at three different levels

was a waste of both private and public resources. The delay in the justice somehow caused the

plaintiff and defendants to invest a lot of time, money and efforts. Had the case been appropriately

dealt with and had justice been provided to the plaintiff Mr. Maheswar Lal Shrestha in District

court or appellate court , a lot of courts’, the judges’, the jury’s, the lawyers’ time would have

been saved.

To make sure the delayed justice as such in this case, will not happen in future and the

innocent ones would not have to waste their money and precious time going to and fro the court

and at the same time to ensure that no extra resources of the state is spent, some procedural or

policy level changes need to be made.

As students of Corporate Law and conscious citizens of Nepal who are quite aware of the

judicial system, we would like to make the following recommendations:

1. While the case was being fought in the district court, the defendant claimed that the

signature used in the cheque might have been forged without his knowledge and requested

the court to appoint an expert to look into the matter. As the signature in the check was ten

years old at the time of hearing, the expert demanded a contemporary signature. Defendant

Bishnu Maharjan claimed he couldn’t present a ten year old signature in front of the

court,thus the expert couldn’t verify the signature. When the case was taken to the Supreme
CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 13

court Banijya Bank was ordered to present all such documents, that were filled and signed

by Bishnu Mahrajan during the time of opening the bank account, in front of the court.

With the help of those documents, it was easily proved that the signature was done by the

defendant himself and wasn't forged. Had the bank been ordered to provide such documents

while the case was being fought at district or appellate level, it would have accelerated the

course of justice.

2. The entire case revolved around the bounced check and the slip that was provided by the

bank to the plaintiff, which had “return to the drawee” written on it. Neal’s jurisdiction had

no law or act or precedent which could clearly state what the phrase actually meant. The

supreme court had to take reference of the verdict given by some Indian courts to know the

close meaning of the phrase. After this case, a precedent can be passed clearly specifying

that “Return to the Drawee” means that the cheque has been bounced because of

insufficient funds, or the banks should stop using the phrase(as it is very confusing) and

should start clearly mentioning the reason for the dishonor of the cheque.

3. The defendant claimed that there has been no notice to him regarding the bounced cheque,

which is why he was unaware of the fact that the cheque has been signed and bounced as

well. The defendant lawyer claimed that as the drawee wasn’t informed in written form

regarding dishonor of cheque, they are not liable to pay the bill. But the referred Exchange

right act 2034, also stated that it was not the same in case of cheques. This means that the

drawer may inform the drawee verbally or in written form regarding the dishonor of the

cheque. This matter could have been looked into when the case was still being fought at

District or Appellate level, which again would’ve saved all the involved parties’ time and

other resources.
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 14

4. The other defendant Mr. Anil Shrestha’s absence prolonged the case. Efforts should have

been made to contact him,as his presence in the court would have made it clear whether

Bishnu Maharjan had willingly signed the check or not (which was the core agenda of the

case). If this was done, there are chances that the case would have been solved at District

level.

5. The Plaintiff Mr. Maheshwar Lal Shrestha could have been more careful. He could have

signed a written agreement regarding the loan, which would have ended the entire facade.

He could also have taken legal advice, when his cheque was dishonored. This way, he

could have known that written notice to the drawee regarding the dishonor of cheque acts

as a strong proof in the court, and would have got justice sooner.

The sole motive of the judicial system must be to serve justice fast, so that the innocent

doesn’t have to go through struggles. This case was fought for over six long years and then justice

was finally served in 2069 BS. The Plaintiff who was innocent had to go through all kinds of

struggles; physical, mental, financial and so on. District and Appellate courts should try their best

to look into all the available evidence and should also dig out evidence and witnesses if required.

Only the Supreme Court should not be relied on to serve the “Ultimate Justice”, efforts should be

made at district and appellate courts to investigate the matter in the same intensity as the supreme

court does. This not only saves the innocent from going through any kind of trauma, but also saves

the state’s resources that are exploited to fight the same case multiple times.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we fully agree with the verdict of the Supreme Court to hold Mr. Bishnu

Maharjan guilty and ordering the company to pay the total amount i.e. principal and interest
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 15

calculating NRs. 2478000 and fine of Nrs. 1500 to Maheshwor Lal Shrestha. After the decision

made by the District and the Appellate Court on the behalf of the defendants, the plaintiff filed

the case in the Supreme Court, of which the Supreme Court made the above mentioned decision,

keeping all the factors in considerations and releasing the decision bench under the following

legal provisions:

1. Section 107 of Negotiable Instrument Act (NIA) 2034, which states that in case any

person who deliberately transfers a Cheque by drawing it to somebody that he/she does

not bear deposit in the Bankor even if there is a deposit which is not sufficient, and if the

Cheque thus transferred is dishonoured due to lack of sufficient deposit when the Cheque

is presented to the concerned Bank for the payment, the amount mentioned in the Cheque

as well as interest on it shall be caused to be recovered to the Holder from the Drawer and

he/she shall be punished with an imprisonment up to Three months or a fine up to Three

Thousand Rupees or both. This applies to the case that Bishnu Maharjan deliberately

transferred the cheque to Maheshwor Lal having insufficient balance in the account.

2. Section 108 of NIA 2034, which states that No complaint relating to the Negotiable

Instrument shall be valid which is not filed within five years from the date of cause of

action to file such complaint. Mr. Maheshwor Lal Shrestha had filed the case within the

legal time frame of 5 years making the complaint valid.

3. Section 66 of NIA 2034, which states that When a Bill of Exchange is dishonoured by

nonacceptance or non-payment, the Holder thereof, or some party thereto who remains

liable thereon, must give notice to all other parties related to such instrument, and if any

party among them has not been noticed, such party shall not be liable to that instrument.

Provided that, nothing in this section renders it necessary to give notice of dishonour to
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 16

the maker of the Promissory Note, acceptor of the Bill of Exchange or the Drawee. The

defendant claimed that Maheshowr Lal didn't issue a notice of dishonor to the company

and his punishment should be cancelled. But it was mentioned that Mr. Maheshwor Lal

had notified the directors verbally about the dishonor of the cheque.

4. Section 103 (6) of NIA 2034, which states Until the contrary is proved, the following

presumptions shall be made:- that the Holder of a Negotiable Instrument is a Holder in

due Course. Provided that, the burden of proving that the Holder is a Holder in due

Course lies upon him/her in the following conditions:-

1. Where the Negotiable Instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner

or from any person in lawful custody thereof by means of an offence or fraud,

2. Where the Negotiable Instrument has been obtained from the maker, Drawer or

acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration.

With this section, the defendant claimed the signature on the cheque to be forged,

which was later verified by the court as a true signature with the result presented by Sanu

Kanchha Lamichhane.

5. Reference to Indian Act regarding negotiable instrument and past court decisions on

cheque dishonor case.

So considering all the facts, considerations, evidence, and reference to NIA 2034, Indian

Act of Negotiable Instruments and past cases, the supreme court has given the verdict that Mr.

Bishnu Maharjan is held guilty and is accountable to pay NRs.2478000 including fine of NRs.

1500 and we believe that justice has been served to the aggrieved party. But in the meantime,

this case took a lot of unnecessary and avoidable discussions and time, which we believe can be

solved with the recommendations we have presented in the report. This can be a huge step
 CHEQUE DISHONOR; MAHESHWOR LAL VS BISHNU MAHARJAN 17

towards saving the public and private resources as well as avoiding the huge loss of money and

time of the defendant as well as the plaintiff spent while taking the case from district to appellate

to the supreme court.

References

● Negotiable Instruments Act, 2034 (1977), published 2034/9/18 (Jan. 2, 1977)