SURENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory application has been filed seeking special leave to present appeal before this court. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this complaint under sec. 138 of N.I. Act. has been dismissed on the ground that the same is premature.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that the demand notice for payment of amount of the cheque which has been dishonored was issued on 10/4/2005 and there is no proof of acknowledgement of the receipt of the said notice by the accused persons. The complaint was admittedly filed on 8/5/2015. The learned trial court in the impugned judgment has held that since the complaint was filed less than 45 days from the date of issue of notice, hence, the complaint is premature. It is a settled principle of law that in case of acknowledgement of the demand notice is not received by the complainant; the complaint is to be filed at least 45 days after issue of demand notice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subodh S. Salaskar vs. Jayprakash M. Shah and Another reported in 2009 (3) SCC (Cri) 834 held as under in paragraph no. 25 :-