ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

3. THE APPELLANT HEREIN FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS ALLEGING THAT THEY COMMITTED AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881. IN THE COMPLAINT THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS WAS DISHONOURED BY PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, RAJAHMUNDRY ON 30-10-1999 AND THE BANK ISSUED THE COMMUNICATION OF DISHONOUR OF THE CHEQUE AND THEREAFTER A NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS ON 16-11-1999. AS THEY DID NOT PAY THE AMOUNT WITHIN 15 DAYS, A COMPLAINT WAS FILED. THE RESPONDENTS ALLEGE THAT THE NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT WAS ISSUED ON 16-11-1999 AND THEREFORE, IT WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 15 DAYS OF THE DEMAND FOR PAYMENT AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 138(B) OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND HENCE THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WAS NOT 9 MAINTAINABLE. ALLEGING THESE FACTS, THE RESPONDENTS FILED A PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE HELD THAT AS THE COMPLAINANT RECEIVED NOTICE ON 30-101999 AND APPARENTLY THE NOTICE FOR PAYMENT WAS ISSUED ON 16-11-1999 I.E. AFTER 16 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF DISHONOUR OF THE CHEQUE THE COMPLAINT WAS CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE QUASHED.

4. ACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, THE COMPLAINANT RECEIVED THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30-10-1999 ON 3-11-1999 AND THE NOTICE SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS WAS WITHIN 15 DAYS THEREAFTER. ANYWAY IT IS A MATTER OF EVIDENCE AND THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS BY HOLDING THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS BARRED BY TIME.

5. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND THE IXTH METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI IS DIRECTED TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

6. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE ABOVE TERMS.