DIPAK MAITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is appearing in the list under the heading "Application", with the consent of the parties, I propose to dispose of the main revisional application itself along with the connected application treating the same as on day's list. This revisional application has been taken out by Dipak Maity, the accused in C.R. Case No. 50 of 2007, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act praying for quashing of the proceeding mainly on the ground that the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall not apply in the case because demand notice was not sent within 30 days from the date of receipt of the information from the bank by the payee or holder of the cheque.

(2.) Mr. De, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that information from bank regarding dishonour of cheque in question was received by the complainant (payee) on 09.12.2006. The demand notice was issued on 29.01.2007 by him on the accused-petitioner, which is contrary to the proviso (b) to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate for the opposite party No. 2, submits that the provision to section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of a complaint filed after the prescribed period, upon satisfaction of the Court that there was sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the prescribed period.