BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the petitioner herein, one of the partners of M/s. Khalsa Medical Hall, Samastipur, is directed against the order dated 8.7.2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 76(C) of 2004 by Sri Ishrat Ullah, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 138 the Negotiable Instruments Act (Hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act).

(2.) M /s. Pfizer Limited, a private firm, manufacturing medicines (hereinafter referred to as the complainant-firm) through its authorised representative filed the aforesaid complaint case inter alia alleging that 5 cheques amounting to a total of Rs. 2,11,125.00 issued by the petitioner herein had bounced due to want of sufficient funds, in his Bank account. It is said that on a request being made by the petitioner the complainant-firm supplied medicines through transport worth Rs. 12,11,125.00 which was received by the accused who handed over 5 cheques to cover the said amount payable by Union Bank of India. The cheques allegedly bounced for want of funds whereupon the complainant-firm orally informed the petitioner regarding the bouncing of the cheques and requested for payment but the accused appears to have evinced no response. Accordingly, the complainant-firm sent a registered notice to the accused requesting for payment of the outstanding amount within six months. Following non-compliance the complainant-firm sent a lawyer's notice on 29.9.2003 but the same also evinced no response. Hence, the complaint.

(3.) THE second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after dishonouring of the cheques the matter was sorted out between the parties and no action having taken by the complainant for over one year suddenly the complaint case was lodged after lapse of 14 months without disclosing the reasonable explanation for the delay and that too before a Forum which had no jurisdiction to try the case leave alone take cognizance. In this connection, it was sought to be pointed out that since the complaint had been filed for dishonour of the cheques, it would be presumed that the complaint was under Section 142 of the N.I. Act and in that case the complaint had to be filed within one month from the day immediately following the date of which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the first notice by the drawer expires. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the case of Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhawan Sunil Kumar, (1998) 6 SCC 514 and S1L Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, (1999) 4 SCC 567.