1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.834/2008 ASHOK CHUGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. DATE: 15/09/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr.C.S.Kotwani, for Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Tiwari, PP, for the State. On the complaint of respondent No.2, the petitioner is facing proceedings under Section 138, N.I. Act. In course of trial in August, 2007, at the stage of defence evidence, respondent No.2 submitted an application, stating that information of dishonour was received on 31st January, whereas notice to respondent No.2 given on March 1st, 2004 which is not within 30 days, so the complaint liable to be dismissed. The learned Magistrate held that February 29th, was holiday (Sunday), and notice given on March 1st so it shall be deemed within limitation. Respondent No.2 preferred revision and vide revisional order dated 5.4.2008, learned Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the above. Aggrieved of the above order, this petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant states that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted all the position that the notice is and could be deemed in limitation, but still mentioning that this point to be decided at the stage of final stage, reversed the order of the learned Magistrate. Stated on behalf of the petitioner is that this plea and objection not raised at earlier stage and rather raised at very late stage of defence evidence, so the objection is not maintainable, as such, the decision of the learned Magistrate should be held god. Stated that decision on this point at the final stage may prejudice the complainant- petitioner. Considered. As above, the learned Magistrate stating February 29th 2 as Sunday and notice being given on March 1st, held the notice within limitation. Though the order is set aside in revision , but this is to be noticed that on the date of the order of the Magistrate, stage was of defence and as per subsequent order-sheets, no defence evidence is produced. Though the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reversed the order, but it is also mentioned just above in paragraph 7 that such objection ought to have been decided on the basis of evidence produced by the rival party and has held that revisionist i.e., respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to raise this objection at the final stage, so the effect of the order is very clear – any how when the stage on the dates subsequent to order of the Magistrate is not changed, the above observation and direction hardly makes any effect, so this petition does not require any interference under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd