FINA DASS Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, Camp at Rohru on 18.6.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 11-R/10 of 2014 whereby he upheld the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. on 23.9.2013/21.10.2013 in Case No. 26-3 of 2013 and convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act).

(2.) Bereft of any unnecessary detail, it is not in dispute that the complainant received a returning memo on 1.2013 and on 3.1.2013 he issued legal notice under the Act which was received by the accused only on 11.2013, but the complaint came to be filed on 23.1.2013 i.e. before the expiry of 15 days.

(3.) The moot question, therefore, is whether an offence under Section 138 of the Act can be said to have been committed when the period provided for under Section 138 Clause (c) of the proviso has not expired.