DAYA SHANKAR GUPTA Vs. MANORANJAN BANK MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties are present before me and heard them. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of one Daya Shankar Gupta, the petitioner herein, seeking for quashing of proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1369 of 2001 now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Howrah, under Section 138 of the N.J. Act.

(2.) The short facts leading to the filing of this application are as under: Jt has been alleged by the petitioner that by a letter dated 10/9/2001, the opposite party through his learned Lawyer, Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, issued a notice of demand under Section 138 of the N.J. Act, 1881 with regard to the alleged dishonour of cheque on 28/8/2001 and the said notice was sent by registered post with AID and the said notice was received by the petitioner on 13/9/2001. It has been alleged by the petitioner that with regard to the aforesaid demand notice, no complaint, however, was filed by the opposite party within the time-frame as provided under Section 142 of the N.J. Act.

(3.) It has further been alleged by the petitioner that in order to create a second cause of action, the said cheque was again presented on 3.11.2001 and the same as returned unpaid with the endorsement refer to drawer and thereafter second demand notice dated 8.11.200 I was sent by registered post with AID, and pursuant to the second notice dated 8/11/2001, a petition of complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, by the impugned order dated 23/11/2001 took cognizance of the said offence and transferred the case to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Howrah. The petitioner thereafter duly entered appearance before the said Court and took out an application for dropping of the said proceeding alleging that the prosecution lodged by the complainant was time barred inasmuch as it was instituted on the basis of the second notice. But unfortunately the learned Magistrate did not accept the contention, of the petitioner and rejected the aforesaid application.