1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.562 OF 2009 Sneha S. Patil ...Petitioner. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. H.S.Venegavkar, adv. For the Applicant. M.H.Mhatre, APP For the Respondent no.1/State. Shri Manoj S. Mohite, adv. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the accused in Criminal Case No.30/2696/SS/2008 pending before the 30th Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner only raised one point against the tenability of the complaint. According to him, notice was issued on 12.5.2007 by the complainant while the complaint is filed on 23rd June, 2008. On perusal of the complaint it becomes clear from paragraph 5 that four cheques were issued by the accused in January, 2008 and four cheques were issued in February, 2008. All these cheques were presented on 29.4.2008 for encashment. Bank memo dated 3.5.2008 and the bank advice dated 2 7.5.2008 were received by the complainant showing that the cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds. In view of this, notice was issued on 12.5.2008 and that was also replied on 26.5.2008. However, on the notice issued by the complainant due to typographical mistake date was mentioned as “12.5.2007” in stead of “12.5.2008”. In view of the facts noted above, notice could not have been issued on 12.5.2007. Merely because of the typographical mistake, it can not be said that complaint was time barred. In view of this, I find no substance in the present petition. 2 Therefore, petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.563 OF 2009 Sneha Sanjay Patil ...Petitioner. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. H.S.Venegavkar, adv. For the Applicant. M.H.Mhatre, APP For the Respondent no.1/State. Shri Manoj S. Mohite, adv. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the accused in Criminal Case No.30/2695/SS/2008 pending before the 30th Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla. Case is registered on the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notice dated 12.5.2007 was issued to the accused while complaint was filed on 23rd June, 2008, therefore, it is barred by the limitation. On perusal of the complaint, it becomes clear from paragraph 5 that out of four cheques, two were issued in March, 2008 and two were issued in April, 2008. All these cheques were presented to the bank on 30.4.2008 for encashment and cheques were dishonoured with the remarks 'for 4 want of sufficient funds'. Bank memo dated 5.5.2008 and bank advice dated 8.5.2008 from the complainant/banker were received. After that on 12.5.2008 notice was issued to the accused under the R.P.A.D. That notice was even replied by the accused on 26.5.2008. In paragraph 7 of the complaint, it is clarified that though the notice was issued on 12.5.2008 due to the typographical mistake, date was typed as "12.5.2007" in stead of "12.5.2008". In view of the facts and circumstances, noted above, notice could not have been issued on 12.5.2007 as all the transactions took place from March, 2008 onwards. Merely because of the typographical error in writing the date, it can not be held that complaint is barred by the limitation. In view of this, I find no substance in the present petition. 2 For the aforesaid reasons, petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.36 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.563 OF 2009 Sneha Sanjay Patil ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anro. ...Respondents. Mr. H.S.Venegavkar, adv. For the Applicant. M.H.Mhatre, APP For the Respondent no.1/State. Shri Manoj S. Mohite, adv. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard. For the reasons given in the application, application is allowed and the writ petition no.563/09 is hereby restored to the file. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)