HIGH QQURT QF QHHATTISGARH AI BILA§PUR Cr M P ho 177 of20 Tameshwar Vaishnav Sic Udhodas Vaishnav, aged about 4O years, Rio village Barbaspur, Post ltar, Police Station Gatapur Jungle, Tahsil Khairagarh, Dismct Rajnandgaon C.G. Petitioner Versus Ramvishal Gupta Slo Mannilal Gupta, aged about 65 years, R/o Civil Line, Ward No. 2 Khairagarh, Police Station and Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. Respondent PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF ORIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice T.P. Sharma) Present: Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER i pi (Passed on 27‘“ March, zoos) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh in Criminai Revision No. 13112006 affirming the order dated 17.7.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh in Criminal Oase No; ~ 399/2006. 2. The order is challenged on the ground that once complainant/petitioner has taken recourse under clause (b) of section 188 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act, 1881 '), then he is required to tile compliant within the stipulated time in accordance with clause (b) of section 142 of the Act, 1881 and no limitation is avaiiable to the complainant from the date of failure of the second demand notice and the revisional court has committed illegality by not quashing the order of issuance of process. 3‘ Counsel for the parties heard. 4. Order impugned and copy of the compiaint med on behalf of the petitioner perused. 5. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that after issuance of first notice under clause (b) of section 138 of the Act, 1881, the respondent has again issued second notice and when the petitioner has failed to make the payment of the amount demanded, the respondent has tiled a complaint against the petitioner calculating the limitation from the second notice and complaint tiled by the respondent was barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner in the matter of Prem Chand Wjay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh and another reported in (2005) 4 SCC 417 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 8 and 9 as under:- “8. Clause (a) of the proviso to section 138 does not put any embargo upon the payee to successiveiy present a dishonoured cheque during the period of its validity. This apart, in the course of business transactions it is not uncommon for a cheque being returned due to insutiicient funds or similar such reasons and being presented again by the payee after some time, on his own volition or at the request of the drawer, in expectation that it would be encashed. The primary interest of its payee is b get his money am compulsion and not choice. On each presentation of the cheque and its dishonour, a fresh right - and not a cause of action — accrues in his favour. Ha may, therefore, without taking preemptory acaon in exercise of his right under clause (b) of Section 138, go on presenting the cheque so as to enable him to exercise such right at any point of time during the validity of the cheque. 9. But once he gives a notice under clause (b) of Sech'on 138, he forfeits such right as in case of failure of the drawer to pay the money within the stipulated time, he would be liable ibr offence and the cause of action for filing the complaint will arise. " On the other hand, order impugned is supported on behalf of the respondent and submitted that now the law is amended and proviso has been added in clause (b) of section 142 of the Act, 1881 and the complaint may be med after the stipulated time and cognizance may be taken in the complaint if the complainant satisties the coutt that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint ithin such w period. in the present ase. the respondent has made a demand after c dishonored of the cheque and he again presented the cheque for paymnt. Same was again dishonored. Demand for due was made, i e but due was not paid by the petitioner. Thereatter, the respondent had tiled a complaint for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act, 11 within te stipulated time from the second notice of 88 h demand. On careful examination it is clerthat ognizance may be taken o a c n the complaint even after stipulated time if te complainnt is able to l h a satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for ot making a n complaint within such period. The question of litation in the mi present case is debatable issue and f the complainant satisfie he i s t Court for not making a complaint within stipulated time, then the Court may take cognizance even after the period of limitation as provided in accordance with clause (b) of section 138 read with clause (b) of section 142 of the Act, 1881. After rejection of the order of revision, the petitioner has tile this d present petition uner section 482 of the Code of Crimin d al Procedure. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Code'). inherent power under section 482 of the Code cannot be used as substitute of revision. 11. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. A/ Sdl- ‘ T. P. Sharma’ 'Judge \ i