TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid and the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee, or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. It is thereafter, the complaint has to be filed within 15 days thereafter. As per Section 142 of the N.I. Act complaint has to be filed within 30 days after the cause of action. As per Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 of the N.I. Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion Petition No. 404/2015 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2019 - B.A. PATIL, J. For the Appellant : Ganesh G.G., Advocate For the Respondent : Chetan B. Angadi, Advocate ORDER B.A. Patil, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Fast Track Court-10 at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No. 419/2014 dated 26.3.2015 whereunder the judgment of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C. No. 13021/2011 dated 27.3.2014 was confirmed by dismissing the appeal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused. The learned counsel for the respondent remained absent. 3. The facts of the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d accused was convicted and imposed a fine of ₹ 7,19,357/- and out of the said amount ₹ 7,14,357/- has been paid to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/accused has preferred the appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 419/2014. The learned Fast Track Court-X Judge, Bengaluru, by order dated 26.3.2015 dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Against the said judgment, the appellant/petitioner is before this Court. 5. Now in the revision petition, several grounds have been urged. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation as contemplated under the law. It is his further submission that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.12.2010. As per Ex. P8 same notice has been served to the accused on 18.12.2010. Thereafter, he has to wait for 15 days and the said period is going to be expired on 1.1.2011 and thereafter 30 days i.e. before 31.1.2011, the complaint ought to have been filed. But in the instant case, the complaint was admittedly filed on 3.2.2011, there is delay of 4 days in filing the complaint. 12. As per Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 of the N.I. Act and then said complaint is said to be valid and the Court may take cognizance of the complaint and issue the summons to the accused. But in the said proviso it has give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation of 30 days i.e. after 31.1.2011. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Courts below. In order to substantiate the said contention petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.S. Muralidhar Vs. H. Narayana Singh reported in 2010 Crl.L.J. 3315. 15. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner/accused has made out a case. Hence, Criminal Revision petition is allowed and the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-X at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No. 419/2014 dated 26.3.2015 is set aside and consequently the judgment passed by XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C. No. 13021/2011 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
