.., 1 's"ss. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.226 of 2008 PETITIONER: Proprietor Shankar Hardware & Plywood, Through Pranay Juneja, S/o Shri O.P. Juneja, age around 32 yrs., R/o Shankar Hardware, Telipara, Thana City Kotwali, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT: Robins Kumar Sethi, S/o Shrl Sethi, age around 40 yrs., R/'o House No.85, Anand Nagar, Thana Tsii&andha, Raipur (C.G.) {Petition under Section 482 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, counsel forthe respondent. Sinale Bench; Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. 3 ORAL ORDER (30-10-2009) 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 30-11-2007 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions 3udge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.115/2007 affirming the order dated 26-4-2007 passed by the Additionat Chlef Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in an unregistered criminal complatnt case, whereby the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Acf) has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Quashment is prayed on the ground that the Court below has not considered the most material question of limitatlon and that the petitioner has filed the complaint within limitation. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as also the record ofthe Courts below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitloner vehemently argued that the cheque was presented for encashment on 30-10-2006 which was dlshonoured and intimated by the Bank vlde intimation dated 1-12- - 2006. The petitloner issued notice to the respondent for discharge of (lability on 8-12-2006 which was ireturned on 21-12-2006 with endorsement that the respondent is out of station since long time. ..<T"-;' .^'""•^'?'- ^lN-iuN'l!l!"'^l's!JNW!l!s^ ,-;^::(^»,. ] ^Si(l^^£!^!s^te'^g^s^%?3:i'i;~?"s?^'"i- <e^.SB l q.Bl'.S' ,1^; Again notice was sent to the respondent vide letter dated 22-12- 2006 which was also received back on 28-12-2006 with endorsement that the respondent was absent at the time of service. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the daily newspaper on 27-1-2007 and the notice was published in the newspaper on 1-2-2007. On 23-2-2007 the petltioner has filed the complaint. Learned counsel further submlts that in accordance with clause (b) of provlso to Section 138 of the Act, the petitioner was required to send notice for the payment within thirtydays ofthe recelpt of information by him from the bank, which the petltloner has sent and the respondent was required to deposit the money within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. But notice has not been duly served and flnally the petitioner has flled the complaint. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner may send more than one notice of demand, but he is required to send notice within 30 days from the date of intimation from the Bank. But in the present case, the petitioner has published notice in the daily newspaper on 1-2- 2007 which he has relied upon and the same is published after the perlod of 30 days. No applicatton for condonation of delay has been fiied by the petitioner. The complaint is hopelessly barred by time and the Court below has rightly dismissed the complaint as time barred. 6. Facts of the case reveal that the petitloner has not send notice/ published the notice, which he has relied upon for the purpose of limitation, within thirty days and the notlce (paper publication) which the petitioner is relying upon has been published after two months of the receipt of intimation from the Bank. The Court below has rightly dismissed the complalnt as barred by limitation. The Court below has not committed any illegallty warranting Interference in terms of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petltion is wlthout any substance, same is liable to be dismlssed and it is hereby dismissed. _ 'ns Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge