AMIT BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since date of service of notice is not specifically disclosed in the complaint, thus on the basis of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act presumption would be made that notice is served within thirty days. If the period of service of notice is taken into consideration the complaint filed in the matter is premature because it was filed on 27.10.2016 itself without expiry of the prescribed period for making payment. Legal notice is said to be sent on 14.9.2016. Thus no cause of action was available to the opposite party no. 2 to file complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant placed reliance on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jayprakash M. Shah and another reported in (2008) 73 SCC 689 and M/s. Rahul Builders v. M/s. Arihant Fertilizers and Chemical and another reported in 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal).