IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8652 of 2009 Between: Sri G. Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner And J. Rambabu and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ch. Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri P. Nagendra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: Addl. Public Prosecutor This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8652 of 2009 ORDER:- The petitioner is accused of oﬀence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (in short, ‘the Act’). It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the complaint is bad as the cheque was drawn by the accused as Managing Partner of Sai Krushi Constructions and as the said ﬁrm was not made a party/accused in the lower Court. Secondly, it is contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. For the ﬁrst contention, Section 141 of the Act in the answer. Under Section 141(1), in case of oﬀences by companies/ﬁrms, the liability is on company/ﬁrm as well as every person, who, at the time the oﬀence was committed, was incharge of and was responsible to the company/ﬁrm for conduct of the business of the company/firm. Since it was the accused who was the signatory in the cheque on behalf of the ﬁrm, he cannot escape liability. Secondly, irrespective of he being signatory of the cheque, since he described himself as Managing Partner of the ﬁrm, again he cannot escape liability (see S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., vs. neeta Bhalla and another[1]). As per allegations in the complaint, after receiving dishonour memo relating to the cheque from the banker, the complainant issued statutory notice to the accused on 24.01.2006 by registered post with acknowledgement due and the accused received the notice on 27.01.2006. The petitioner’s counsel says that it was received by the accused on 25.01.2006. The date on which the notice was received by the accused, is a question of fact, which this Court cannot go into and determine in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to the complainant, the accused did not make payment of the dishonoured cheque amount within 15 days of the notice. The complaint in the lower Court was ﬁled on 14.03.2006. If the notice was received by the accused on 27.01.2006, 15 days’ time for payment thereafter expires by 11.02.2006. Cause of action for ﬁling the complaint starts on 12.02.2006, after excluding the day on 11.02.2006. Since February month has only 28 days, the complaint should have been ﬁled on or before 13.03.2006, which is the last day i.e., 30th day of commencement of the period of limitation. It is contended by the ﬁrst respondent’s counsel that the day of expiry of period of limitation has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the complaint. It is not so. There appears to be a mistake in making calculation of the last date for ﬁling the complaint in the lower Court. That is the reason why the lower Court also did not take any objection in that regard and did not return the complaint with that objection. If the lower Court had returned the complaint with that objection, then the complainant would have opportunity to represent the complaint along with a petition to condone the delay by invoking Section 142 of the Act. Now I propose to give the said opportunity to the ﬁrst respondent/complainant. The ﬁrst respondent will be at liberty to approach the lower Court with a petition under Section 142 of the Act for condoning the delay of one day in ﬁling the complaint on the ground of improper calculation. In such an event, the lower Court is at liberty to decide the said petition on merits. Subject to the above observation, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 29.11.2011 ES [1] (2005) 8 SCC 89