Cr. R. No.1072/2001 28.11.2011 Although the case has been called out in the revised list, the learned counsel for the applicant has remained absent on both the calls. The proceedings of the Court below have been held up in because of this revision and the interim order passed herein. Heard learned counsel for the respondent, who has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The brief facts are that a cheque was issued by the applicant to the opposite party, who presented it to the bank and it was dishonoured. Thereafter, a notice was given by the respondent to the applicant. Subsequently, the cheque was presented again and it was again dishonoured and again a notice was given and thereafter a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was time barred from the first notice but was within time from the second notice. The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that the cause for prosecution arose on the first notice and the subsequent presentation of the cheque and the subsequent notice would not extend the limitation prescribed. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sadanandan Bhandran Vs. Madhavan Suneil Kumar - AIR 1998 SC 3043. The revisional Court has held that the question whether the first notice was actually served upon the applicant/accused or was not served was a question of fact to be decided upon evidence and only from this, it could be determined whether the limitation would start from the first notice or from the second notice. On this ground the revisional Court has remanded the case after setting aside the order of the lower Court. I do not find any error in this approach. Accordingly this revision is dismissed. (Sushil Harkauli) Acting Chief Justice AK