PURAN MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed against the order dated 26.6.2006 of revisional Court and the order of Trial Court dated 26.3.2004, whereby substance of offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Negotiable Instruments Act' short short) was read over to petitioner.

(2.) The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to complainant himself on 5.6.2002, they received information regarding return of cheque, thereafter, they served legal notice through Advocate on 21.6.2002. As such the notice issued by complainant is time barred, and the proceedings initiated on the basis of time barred notice are liable to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed on Ganesh Das vs. Narendra Kumar, 1999 (3) WLC (Raj.) 457 , wherein it was held that since notice was sent within 15 days of the date of dishonour of cheque, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The other contention of the learned counsel is that since the complaint filed by respondent is premature, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on Kunju Viswanadhan vs. Ramakrishnan Surendram, 1998 Cr LJ 3553 , and M/s. Harpreet Hosiery Rehari vs. Nine Mahajan, 2000 Cr LJ 3625 , wherein it was held that since the complaint was filed on 14th day of notice, the same is premature and liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record.