SARITA MEHTA Vs. SHARVANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fate of this petition hinges on the answer to the question as to how the period of 15 days notice under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter referred as the Act) is to be computed.

(2.) In the present case Cheque dated December 30, 1998 was issued by the petitioner to liquidate the liability. The Cheque bounced when presented to the banker for encashment. The respondent herein received information from the banker about the bouncing of the Cheque on March 19, 1999. He served demand notice dated April 3, 1999 and when the payment was not made within the prescribed period, he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. On the basis of the complaint, the accused/petitioner has been summoned by the learned trial Magistrate, Hence the present petition.

(3.) It was contended for the petitioner that the notice of demand was issued after expiry of 15 days from the date of knowledge of bouncing of the Cheque, therefore, the complaint and summoning orders are liable to be quashed. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the information about bouncing of the Cheque was received by the respondent (complainant before the trial Court) on March 19,1999, whereas the notice had been issued on April 3,1999, which was beyond the prescribed time of 15 days. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the day on which the information was received, i.e. March 19, 1999, is also to be taken into account while computing the period of 15 days. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the day on which information about the bouncing of the Cheque is received, has to be excluded while computing the prescribed period.