V R PRAVEEN Vs. ISMAYIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution launched under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ended in acquittal of the 1st respondent. Therefore, this appeal at the instance of the complainant. The reason for the acquittal was that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation provided for in S.142(b) as it then stood, before the amendment by Act 55/2002.

(2.) The facts relating to the issue are as follows. Statutory notice was tendered for delivery on the accused and he refused it on 3.8.96. Notice was received back by the complainant on 9.8.96. On the 45th day from 9.8.96, complaint was filed on 23.9.96. Whether this is a belated complaint is the moot question. As per clause (b) of the proviso to S.138 of the Act, the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, shall make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. That notice has been duly issued. Ext. P6 is the notice. Then the payee has to wait for 15 days for the drawer to meet the demand for payment. Thus the 15 days have to be reckoned in terms of clause (c) of the proviso to S.138 from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer. In this case, the drawer did have the knowledge about the notice of demand on 3.8.96 when he refused to accept it. So, the payee had to wait until 18.8.96. .

(3.) The period of 15 days has to be reckoned from 9.8.96, when the complainant had received back the notice, the appellant submits.