rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 205 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 205 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 205 OF 2008 Good Value Marketing Co.Ltd. & Ors. .. Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.S.N.Raj for the Petitioner. Mrs.Joshi for Respondent No.2. Shri J.P.Yagnik-A.P.P.- State. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The present Petitioners are the Accused in a complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed way back in the year 1998 and the process was issued on 27th November, 1998. The issue process order was not challenged. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that an application for discharge was earlier filed, but the same came to be withdrawn in view of the Judgment in Adalat Prasad vs. Adalat Prasad vs. Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal & Ors.(2004), Supreme Court Cases 338. Rooplal Jindal & Ors.(2004), Supreme Court Cases 338. Rooplal Jindal & Ors.(2004), Supreme Court Cases 338. Belatedly, by filing the present petition a prayer for quashing of the issue process order dated 21st November, 1998 is made. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the statutory notice ought to have been issued within a period of 15 days from the date of the intimation of dishonour of the cheque. 2. The learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Uniplas India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Uniplas India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Uniplas India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr (2001)6 Supreme State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr (2001)6 Supreme State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr (2001)6 Supreme Court Cases 8, Court Cases 8, Court Cases 8, which holds that the conditions of issuing notice within 15 days is mandatory. However, in the facts of the present case, the intimation from the banker of the complainant has not been filed and thus, it is not possible to calculate the exact period of 15 days. As the petition has been filed belatedly, I decline to entertain the same. The issue as to wether the notice was issued within a period of 15 days from the date of intimation of the dishonour of the cheque can be decided only in a trial. The question raised cannot be answered at this stage. In the result, the writ petition is summarily rejected. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.)