DHANMANTRI SAHU Vs. PREMICHAND SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused facing trial under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque which was given to the complainant was dishonored at the first instance. However, it was again presented for payment on second instance on 22/5/2018 and it was again dishonored on 24/5/2018. Consequently, the legal notice should have been served to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from 24/5/2018 uptill on 23/6/2018. Whereas, the notice was served to the petitioner on 30/6/2018, therefore, the case would be barred under Ss. 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He further submits that, at this stage, when the application was filed to discharge the petitioner before the learned Court below, the same was not appreciated and thereby the Court came into wrong conclusion. He placed his reliance in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 2 SCC 424 and submits that in the identical cases of like nature hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the legal notice ought to have been issued within a period of 30 days, therefore, in the instant case since the legal notice was issued after 30 days, the complaint could not have been filed.