S DAMODAR REDDY Vs. S NARSIMLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Ch. Sujatha, the learned Counsel representing Ramachandra Rao, Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) This Court by order dated 16th August, 2004 in view of the decision in Sri Koteshwari Lace Industries v. Madasu Parasuram, 1997 (1) ALD (Crl) 767 (AP) = 1997 (2) ALT (Crl) 45 (AP), had referred the question "Whether the period of 15 days as specified in Section 138 of the N.I. Act is mandatory or is only a technicality, which can be got over and even prior to the expiry of the time if the complaint is filed, whether it would be premature or such complaint is maintainable."

(3.) The Division Bench by order dated 1.9.2004 had answered the reference as here under: The learned Judge while referring the decision in Sri Koteshwari Lace Industries v. Madasu Parasuram, referred the above said reference for appropriate orders. But we need not dwelve upon this question any further in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in N. Venkata Siva Ram Prasad v. Rajeswari Constructions, 1996 (3) ALD 1 (DB) = 1996 Crl.LJ 3409, in which, one of us (G.Bikshapathy, J.) was also a party. It has been clearly held by the Division Bench that where on dishonour of cheque, the complaint was filed by payee before expiry of period of 15 days from the date of service of notice as prescribed under Proviso (C) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (1881) (as amended by Amendment Act of 1988), such complaint is premature and no cognizance could be taken by the Magistrate even after expiry of the said period of 15 days. In view of this, no further orders are necessary. Ms. Ch. Sujatha, learned Counsel representing for appellant would contend that the decision of the Division Bench in N. Venkata Siva Ram Prasad v. Rajeswari Constructions, 1996 Crl.L.J.34o9, was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in Sri Koteshwari Lace Industries v. Madasu Parasuram and another (supra) and hence, the said view was expressed by the learned Judge.