LAKSHMI KANT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2.

(2.) THE petitioner would be aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 21.5.2002 as also the proceeding in Complaint Case No. 689 (c) of 2002 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act read with Section 420 of the Penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Section 142 (b) read with Section 138 (c) of the N.I. Act the complaint was to be initiated within one month from the date the cause of action would arise under Section 138 (c) of the N.I. Act meaning thereby 15 days after the notice sent under Section 138 (b) of the N.I. Act was received by the petitioner. It is submitted that though notices would have been sent within the requisite period under Section 138 (b) of the N.I. Act the complaint would be completely silent with regard to the date on which notices would have been served on the petitioner. It is submitted that the satisfaction with regard to the limitation would have been a necessary condition of law before the cognizance could have been taken. In absence of necessary pleadings in this regard in the complaint the cognizance would be vitiated. In the alternative, it submitted that in any event in absence of necessary pleadings in this regard the notice which was sent on 11.1.2002 would be deemed to have been served on expiry of 30 days i.e. by 10th February 2002. The normal presumption in law for service of a registered letter. He therefore submits that the complaint could well have been initiated within 30 days thereafter also meaning thereby till 10.3.2002. In the present case, the complaint would have been filed on 19.2.2003 clearly beyond the period of limitation. He re lied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2000(1) PLJR 222 (Chandan Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Am.).