THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.NO.1937 OF 2003 09.11.2010 Bommidi Madhu Sudhanrao ...PETITIONER VERSUS Kallapu Ramesh & another ...RESPONDENTS < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: !Counsel for Petitioner : Sri C.Praveen Kumar ^Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor ? Cases referred THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1937 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 Aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2003 made in SR No.409 of 2002 by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram, whereby the learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the offences against the respondents 1 & 2 herein, the petitioner approached this court and filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner filed a private complaint before the court below against the respondents herein for the alleged offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 of IPC. The court below referred the same to the police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the police after investigation referred the same as “Civil in Nature”. In the light of the said reference, the petitioner again filed another private complaint against the respondents 1 & 2 for the very same offences and the same was numbered as SR No.409 of 2002. As stated supra, the same was rejected by the court below holding that the same is barred by limitation. 3 Though notices are sent to the respondents 1 & 2 the same are not returned unserved. However as the point involved in the present case is between the court and the petitioner, this court is of the view that there is no need for this court to hear the respondents 1 and 2. 4 Apparently the offences alleged against the respondents 1 & 2 are under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 of IPC. The learned Magistrate took into consideration only the offence with regard to section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act but has totally forgotten to take into consideration the other offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. It is true that to attract the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant shall strictly adhere to the provisions of the said Section of Law i.e. issuance of notice within the specified period and there after the complaint shall be filed within a further period of 30 days. If those aspects are taken into consideration, as rightly held by the court below, the said complaint in so far as the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, is definitely barred by limitation. But in so far as the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC is concerned, the maximum sentence that can be imposed for the said offence is seven years and if we refer to Section 468 of Cr.P.C, there is no period of limitation for it. 5 The police in their final report filed under section 173 of Cr.P.C. have stated that the said transaction between the parties is civil in nature. The present complaint which was numbered as SR No.409 of 2002 can either be treated as a separate complaint or as a protest petition to the said final report filed by the police and the court below should have acted diligently and followed the procedure provided for under section 200 of Cr.P.C. Ultimately it is for the court after following the procedure provided for under section 200 Cr.P.C. to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order dated 16.10.2003 whereby the court below held that the entire complaint is barred by limitation is not correct and the same is liable to be set aside. 6 In the result, the revision is allowed, the order dated 16.10.2003 passed by the court below is hereby set aside and the court below is hereby directed to accept the said complaint, follow the procedure as provided for under section 200 of Cr.P.C. etc and pass appropriate orders in so far as the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC is concerned. -------------- 09.11.2010 Kvsn