IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29423 of 2008 CHUMAN PANDEY, SON OF RAVINDRA PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANDISTHAN, P.S. GOVINDGANJ, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. YOGENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE CHHOTELAL SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOBINDPUR BAZAR, P.S. HARSIDHI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ----- OPPOSIE PARTIES ----------- For the State : Ms. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. 2 23.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari, East Champaran in Complaint Case No. 343 of 2000/1628 of 2000 by which the Magistrate has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Cheque was issued on 14.4.2002 which bounced on 12.5.2002. The first notice was issued by the complainant on 10.6.2002 and thereafter the second notice was issued on 6.9.2002. It is further submitted that the dates aforesaid would indicate that in fact notices were issued beyond the time limitation fixed by sub section (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It has been submitted that in fact the notices were not received by the petitioner and, therefore, the entire complaint petition is time barred. These facts would require evidence, as it is rebuttable statement when the petitioner states that he did not receive notice 2 or that no notices were issued to him. These facts have to be tested before the Court can accept them. The Court below will take into consideration these issues at the time of framing of charge to examine whether prima facie complaint petition would be maintainable in view of the time limitation imposed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)