- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.125 OF 1997 APPEAL NO.125 OF 1997 APPEAL NO.125 OF 1997 Mahendra Narottamdas Gandhi ...Appellant vs. Mukesh Deepchand Sanghvi State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 3,2009 : MARCH 3,2009 : MARCH 3,2009 JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. None appears for the appellant. Perused the impugned order. The appellant filed a complaint against the first respondent alleging commission of offence under sections 406, 408, 420 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881. By the impugned order dated 10th January 1997, the complaint has been dismissed on the ground of bar of limitation and the first respondent has been acquitted. In the impugned order, it is stated that in the very subject matter of the complaint, an earlier complaint was filed by the applicant on 3rd July 1993 and was withdrawn on 26th August 1993. 2. In the complaint subject matter of this appeal, the process was issued against the first respondent only for offence under section 138 of the said Act. The complaint was filed on 26th August 1993. In the complaint it is stated that - 2 - the cheque in the sum of Rs.4,01,080/- dated 21st June 1993 which is the subject matter of the complaint was dishonoured when it was again presented by the appellant on 2nd July 1992. The said cheque was presented by the appellant on 7th July 1993 and by memorandum of dishonour dated 9th July 1993, the said cheque was returned dishonour to the appellant. In the verification statement, the appellant has stated that on the basis of the dishonour, a notice of demand was issued to the first respondent on 19th July 1993 which was received by the first respondent on 23rd July 1993. Therefore, in view of section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881, the complaint ought to have been filed within the period of one month from 23rd July 1993. As stated earlier, the complaint was filed after expiry of period of one month i.e. on 26th August 1993. The proviso to clause (b) of section 142 empowering the court to extend the period of limitation was brought on the statute book with effect from 6th February 2003. In the circumstances, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was absolutely right in holding that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation. Hence, there is no error in the impugned order and the Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE