1. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.202/2002 Ramratan @ Bunti Vs. State and Anr. 2. S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.201/2002 Ramratan @ Bunti Vs. State of Raj. And Anr. Dated : 05.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Deepak Soni, for the petitioners. Mr. GS Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr.Vikrant Gupta for non-petitioner No.2. *** Since both the aforesaid criminal misc petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. pertain to similar orders dated 22.12.2001 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, District Tonk, in two separate criminal revision petition nos. 45/2001 and 46/2001, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions, in nub, are thus: “That the complainant petitioner Ram Ratan @ Bunty and non petitioners No.2 Suresh Chandra and Satya Narayan were jointly running a business of supplying Bajri from Kadeda River. This joint venture continued w.e.f. December, 1995 up to October, 1996. Pursuant to their common understanding, all the bills were being prepared in the name of Bharat Trading Company and Suresh Chand Sharma. Both, Suresh Chand Sharma and Satya Narain gave cheques to the complainant, of different amount, but both the cheques were dis-honoured by -2- the Bank for want of sufficient funds. The complainant gave notice to both the non-petitioners and when they failed to repay the amount, the complainant petitioner filed a complaint against them in police station where FIR came to be registered against them in the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence vide order dated 28th May, 2001, which was challenged by way of revision in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura. The revisional court set- aside the order of cognizance dated 28.5.2001 and allowed the revisions. Aggrieved with the order dated 22nd December, 2001, the complainant petitioner has impugned the same by way of criminal misc. petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the non petitioners gave two separate cheques to the petitioner with a view to grab his money knowingly that the balance was not in their account. It was the reason that all the cheques were dishonoured by the Bank for want of sufficient funds. The non petitioners No. 2 have committed the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and the learned trial court took the cognizance of the offences, but the revisional court has arbitrarily set-aside the order of taking cognizance of offence, which deserves to be quashed. -3- Learned counsel for the non petitioners No.2 defended the impugned orders and stated the same to be just and proper. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the provisions of law, it is noticed that consequent upon the failure of the drawer to pay the money within the period of 15 days, as envisaged under clause (c) of the proviso of Section 138 of NI Act, the liability of the drawer for being prosecuted for the offence he has committed arises and the period of one month for filing the complaint under section 142 is to be reckoned accordingly. Thus, the cause of action for filing complaint would arise after completion of 15 days from the date, the drawer receipts the notice and fails to pay the amount within that period. The payee cannot lodge the complaint after completion of one month from the date on which the cause of action arise, as there is bar under clause (b) of Section 142 of NI Act. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the cheques were filed by the petitioner in the bank on 15th December, 1997 and the same were returned to him by the Bank on 16th December, 1997, for want of sufficient -4- funds. Thereafter when the complainant reproached or complained to the non petitioners No.2 about the insufficiency of funds in their accounts, they asked him to resubmit the cheque in the Bank. Pursuant to their commitment, he again deposited the cheque on 21st March, 1998, but again the cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. In the instant case, the complainant lodged the FIR with police station and the police, after completion of investigation, found the complaint to be false and gave Final Report un-occurred and on the protest petition having been filed by the complainant, the court took the cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. It is relevant to record that the period of giving notice within 15 days is to be reckoned from the date when the first time the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank. When the cheque were dis- honoured for the first time, no notice is found to have been given within period of 15 days. Learned counsel for the non petitioners No.2 canvassed that with a view to bring the complaint within limitation, the complainant petitioner, on his own submitted the cheque to the Bank Manager for encashment. Neither they issued the cheques nor they ever asked him to submit the cheque with the Bank Manager -5- again. Since the notice was not given within time frame, the complaint was barred by limitation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, relying upon numerous judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also of this Court, arrived at a conclusion that the court was barred to take cognizance upon a complaint, if it was not made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arise under clause (c) of proviso of Section 2 of N.I. Act. The Additional Sessions Judge has critically examined the facts and law relevant to this case in detail and arrived at a correct finding that no offence under section 138 of N.I. Act was made out, as the complaint was time barred. The impugned judgments are found to be just and proper and suffer from no infirmity. Thus, the impugned orders call for no intervention. For the reasons stated above, the aforesaid criminal misc. petitions being bereft of merit, stand dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg