SANTA PRIYA Vs. UDYA SANKAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point emerging for consideration in the instant Revision Application filed by the accused petitioners for quashing the relevant proceedings, being Case No.C-118 of 1991 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of 24 - Parganas at Alipore, is whether it was competent for him to take cognizance of the alleged offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter shortened into Act) on the petition of complaint filed by the complainant opposite party No. l beyond the period specified in S.142(b) thereof, in the facts and circumstances herein below indicated. To put it somewhat differently when had the cause of action for the relevant complaint had arisen, in the facts and circumstances there of?

(2.) ON account of goods supplied by the O.P.No. 1 complainant to the petitioners-accused persons on or before 16-10-1990 they had handed over a cheque for the sum of Rs.50,000/- only, being Cheque No.374629 dated 12-9-1990 drawn on State Bank of India, Chowringhee Branch, Calcutta, to him (O.P.No. 1) on 12-9-1990 in discharge of their liability in part. The same was presented (by him) before the Bank on the same very day, to be dishonoured. The complainant had again presented the said cheque before the Bank on 20-11-1990 on the request of the accused persons, which had again been dishonoured, intimated by the Bank to him on 15-12-1990 whereupon his Advocate had sent registered notices/letters with A/D to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 on 28-12-1990 at their residential addresses for making payment of the said amount within fifteen days of the receipt of the same. Since the A/D cards (acknowledgement thereof) had not reached him till 24-2-1991 his learned Advocate had sent a letter to the Postal Authority on 25-2-1991 inquiring about the delivery/service of the aforesaid notices sent by registered post to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 &3. ON the following day, on 26-2-1991, he (complainant), however, had received the said A/D cards and came to know that the notices had been received by the accused persons on 1-1-1991 and 3-1-1991. The relevant, petition of complaint had been filed by the complainant on the very next day, 27-2-1991. The learned Magistrate upon examination of the witnesses and perusal of the record appears to have taken cognizance of the alleged offence and directed issue of summons upon the petitioners-accused by his order dated 4.3.1991.

(3.) AS already indicated, on the relevant cheque being dishonoured twice, the complainant had sent notices by Registered Post with A/D to the accused Nos. 2 & 3 through his Advocate by letters dated 28-12-1990 demanding payment of said amount of money. The accused No. 1 had received the aforesaid notice on 1-1-1991 and the accused No. 3 had received the notice sent to him on 3-1-1991. In terms of Clause (c) of S.138 of the Act the cause of action (for the complainant) should be deemed to have arisen on 18-1-1991. The complaint was to be filed within one month from 18-1-1991 under S.142(b) of the Act ie, by 18-2-1991. But the relevant complaint had been filed by the complainant before the court on 27-2-1991, little beyond one month from the date on which cause of action for the relevant complaint would indeed be time barred in the special and peculiar undisputed facts and circumstances apparently arose. The relevant complaint was prima facie time barred as such. But the question which crops up for consideration in the instant proceedings is whether the relevant complaint of the instant case, as indicated above. No decision on the point calling for consideration could be cited by the learned Advocates of any of the parties.