HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.193 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order dated 28/07/2006 in C.C.No.221 of 2004 whereby the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The brief facts are that the first respondent took a loan of Rs.70,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of purchasing site for Human Rights Council. The receipt of amount was acknowledged by the respondent on 19/11/2002, but even after repeated demands he failed to repay the amount and he issued a cheque dated 06/01/2003 for Rs.70,000/- towards discharge of the amount. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured for ‘insufficient funds’ on 08/02/2003. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 18/02/2003 demanding the accused to make payment. The accused evaded to take delivery of the notice and the same was returned on 03/03/2003. The accused, after coming to know the proposed action to be taken by the complainant, requested him to submit the cheque for collection on 15/04/2003, and the complainant submitted it for collection through his bank on 21/04/2003. Again the complainant got issued notice dated 25/04/2003 and the accused evaded to take delivery. Hence, the complaint. Prior to the issuance of legal notice on 25/04/2003, the complainant issued another notice on 18/02/2003 demanding the first respondent herein to make payment, but it was returned unserved on 03/03/2003. Instead of taking that notice into consideration, the appellant/complainant got issued another notice on 25/04/2003, and when it was also returned, he filed the present complaint. In my considered view, for all purposes, the cause of action arises on the day when he issued the first notice on 18/02/2003 and if that notice is taken into consideration, apparently, the complaint filed by the appellant is beyond the time provided for under Section 138 of the Act. This aspect has been dealt with in detail by the trial Court and a conclusion is arrived at that the complaint is misconceived. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no merits in this Criminal Appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 26th March, 2010 SKM