SANTIPRIYA SEN Vs. S.P. BHATTACHARYYA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is for quashing of a proceeding being Complaint Case No. C-588 of 1996 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas.

(2.) On December 3, 1996, opposite party No. 1 filed a petition of complaint under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah against the present petitioner and two others. In the petition of complaint it was alleged that the complainant/opposite party No. 1 purchased some shares of various companies and later on intended to sell it. It was alleged that the complainant/O. P. No. 1 thereafter was introduced to the present petitioner and another person, who agreed to sell those shares in lieu of some remuneration. The complainant thereafter handed over the shares worth Rs. 5,47,555 to M/s Sourit Sen and Associates (P) Ltd. during the period between October 1995, and February, 1996. It was alleged that out of the total amount as aforesaid the complainant had already received a sum of Rs. 3,49,880 and after adjustment an amount of Rs. 1,97,675 remained due. The accused persons, it was alleged, issued five cheques in favour of the petitioner. But all those cheques, on production for encashment in the bank, were dishonoured. Thereafter O. P. No. 1 sent a demand notice demanding payment of the amount mentioned in those cheques. The said notice was received by the company on October 26, 1996. On failure to make the payment by the accused persons, the complainant/O. P. No. 1 lodged this petition of complaint.

(3.) Mr. Subir Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceeding is bad in law, because the petition of complaint filed in the court of the learned Magistrate is barred by limitation. Along with the petition of complaint an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was also filed by the complainant. Mr. Ganguly submits that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has got no manner of application in lodging a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Mr. Ganguly relies on a judgment reported in (1997) Crl. LJ 1348, in which it was held by the learned single judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for condoning delay in filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. But on going through the records of the case I find that the petition of complaint was very much within time. From the record it appears that the demand notice was received by the company on October 26, 1996.