In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 694 of 2001 Date of decision: February 26, 2009 Santokh Singh ... Petitioner versus Naresh Kumar ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. H.S. Bhuller, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as “the petitioner”), against the judgment dated 11.9.1997, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In nutshell, the facts as unfolded by the complainant are that he was the sole Proprietor of the firm M/s Chawla Trading Company, Shahpur Kandi, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and was holder of the cheque in question in due course. The respondent had purchased the cement worth Rs.53,275/- and in order to discharge his liability, he had issued a cheque bearing No.104753 dated 22.6.1995, drawn on State Bank of India, Bungal Branch, Tehsil Pathankot for a sum of Rs.30,000/- from his account No.921. The said cheque was presented on 22.6.1995 and was dishonoured on 26.6.1995, resultantly the complaint was filed on 27.10.1995. After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned who pleaded not guilty to the notice and claimed to contest. Crl. Revision No. 694 of 2001 -2- *** During evidence, the complainant had examined R.S. Pathania Clerk-typist (PW1), V.K. Raina, Accountant State Bank of India, Bungal, Balwant Singh (PW3) and he himself appeared as PW-4. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while countering the allegations, he admitted having purchased the cement from the complainant. However, he explained that the payment was made by him in cash. While admitting the issuance of the cheque, he disclosed that the cheque was issued as security before getting the delivery of the cement, but the same was misused by the complainant. He also denied if he had received notice. However, he denies his signatures on the acknowledgment (Ex.P7). He further disclosed that he had given a blank cheque to the complainant but the amount was filled by the complainant. He further stated that he had made payment in the presence of Bittu and that the complaint was false. The trial ended in conviction and his appeal also failed. Hence this petition. Arguments heard. Record perused. The only question raised before me is that the cheque was presented on 22.6.1995 and was dishonoured on 26.6.1995 and the complaint having been filed on 27.10.1995 was not within limitation. In this regard, it may be observed that after the cheque was dishonoured on 26.6.1995, the same was again presented for encashment but it was again dishonoured on 28.9.1995 and thereafter notice was issued on 30.9.1995. The said notice was served upon the petitioner on 7.10.1995 as per acknowledgment (Ex.P7). The limitation to file the complaint could commence from the date of service of notice. In all probabilities, notice Crl. Revision No. 694 of 2001 -3- *** must have been served within 3-4 days, therefore, the complaint having been filed within one month thereafter i.e. on 27.10.1995 cannot be said to be barred by limitation. It has further been informed to me that the petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence. No other argument has been raised. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, no such defect, irregularity or illegality rendering miscarriage of justice has been pointed out or detected, therefore, no interference is called for. Consequently, the instant petition being unmerited is dismissed. February 26, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge