AJAY GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Konde-Dashmukh, learned A. P. P for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India read with Section 482 of the criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 9. 10. 2003 passed by the Learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the discharge application dated 14. 7. 2003 filed by the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 has filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the act") since the two Cheques of Rs. 27 lacs issued by the petitioner had been returned by the petitioner's bank unpaid. The only contention raised by Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 under section 138 of the Act was hopelessly time barred inasmuch as it was not filed within the time stipulated under the provisions of the Act. To be more precise according to mr. Bhasin, the complaint under section 136 of the act ought to have been filed within 45 days from the date on which the cheques return memo was issued by the drawee-bank on which the cheques were drawn.

(3.) TO appreciate the submissions of Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be advantageous to narrate the relevant facts and dates of the case. The cheques in question were issued by the petitioner on 20. 10. 2000. The respondent presented the cheques in his bank i. e. Bank of Baroda, Colaba branch, Mumbai (for short "respondent's bank') on 18. 4. 2001. The petitioner's bank i. e. Bharat Overseas Bank (for short 'petitioner's bank') returned the cheques by issuing "cheque return memo" dated 19. 4. 2001 for the reason that "payment countermanded by the drawer". It was received by the respondent's bank on the very date. On 36. 4. 2001 respondent no. 2 had gone to his bank to enquire whether the cheques had been encashed. On that date the cheques were returned to respondent no. 2 alongwith the "cheque return memo" dated 19. 4. 2001 issued by the petitioner's bank. A notice of demand was issued on 14. 5. 2001 and it was received by the petitioner on 16. 5. 2001. The petitioner replied to the notice on 7. 6. 2002. The complaint came to be filed on 28. 6. 2661.