Y KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. SHARANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR resolving the judicial dissent expressed by two Hon'ble judges of this Court, the matter has been referred to us for resolving the controversy by an authoritative pronouncement. The conflicting views are found in the judgments of Justice A. B. Murgod delivered in criminal revision petition in D. Puttaswamy v N. Ramakrishna and of Justice B. N. Mallikarjuna in G. Ekantappa v State of Karnataka and Another. The controversy relates to the interpretation of the provisions of Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called the Act' ). The point for consideration is to determine the period of limitation prescribed under Section 142 for filing the emplaint for an offence under Section 138 of the said Act.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to have a reference to the provisions of the aforesaid two sections. Section 138 prescribes:

(3.) WHILE deciding the case of D. Puttaswamy, supra, Murgod, j. , held: