G.D. NARANG Vs. RAMESH KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Sec. 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dtd. 22/1/2002 passed by JMFC, Bhopal in RT No. 968/2001, whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of an offence under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.

(2.) Complainant's case in brief is that complainant is owner and landlord of duplex house No. HX-1 HIG E-7 extension, Sahpura, Bhopal. Accused is his tenant in aforesaid building. Accused issued a cheque to complainant for pay- ment of rent but the same got dis-honored on account of insufficient fund. Thereafter, complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. against the accused.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is landlord and respondent/accused is his tenant. Ex. P/1's cheque was issued for payment of arrears of rent. There is no dispute with respect to the handwriting, signature etc. of Ex. P/1's cheque. Appellant received Ex. P/2's information on 13/10/1993 and Ex. P/3's information on 14/10/1993, Ex. P/4's demand notice was issued to respondent/accused on 20/10/1993. As per Sec. 138 (b) of N.I. Act, notice is required to be issued within 15 days from date of receipt of infor- mation pertaining to dishonour of cheque. Thus, Ex. P/4's demand notice was issued within limitation prescribed in the law. It is correct that aforesaid notice was received by respondent/accused on 2/11/1993 (Ex. P/5). Learned trial Court has wrongly calculated period mentioned in Sec. 138(b) of N.I. Act. Trial Court has calculated limitation from the date of receipt of notice which is against provision of law as mentioned in Sec. 138(b) of N.I. Act and princi- ple laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another, (2007) 6 SCC 555. Hence, learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted respondent/accused. Therefore, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and respondent/accused be convicted for offence under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.