Complaint barred by the period of limitation.

The unsuccessful complainant Peddireddy Sanjeeva Reddy filed the appeal assailing the acquittal judgment, dated 21.06.2007, passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, in the private complaint case vide C.C.No.785 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, 'N.I. Act').

2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the accused Mallavarapu Chandra Reddy along with his wife borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from him for business purpose by executing Ex.P.1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. After repeated demands, in discharge of said debt, the accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque bearing No.156076, dated 25.08.2005 for a sum of Rs.8,54,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Chennai Branch. When the said cheque was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement funds insufficient. The complainant got issued a legal notice demanding to pay the cheque amount and the same was returned on 04.10.2005 with an endorsement addressee continuously absent. Hence the complaint.

3. After recording sworn statement of the complainant, the case was taken cognizance and the accused, who appeared before the Court pursuant to the summons and after supply of case copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, Cr. P.C.), when questioned on substance of accusation under Section 251 Cr. P.C., he pleaded not guilty.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, complainant himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8, which include Ex.P.1 promissory note, Ex.P.2 cheque (supra), Ex.P.3 pay slip, Exs.P.4 and P.5 cheque return memos, Ex.P.6 office copy of legal notice, dated 26.09.2005, Exs.P.7 and P.8 returned postal covers, dated 04.10.2005. On behalf of the accused, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.D.1 to 3 including served copy of plaint in O.S.No.74 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Ex.D.2 writing of DW.2 in Court and Ex.D.3 pass book.

5. After completion of the evidence on the side of the complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and he denied the incriminating material levelled against him.

6. Apart from other merits, the trial Court held that the complaint is barred by limitation as it was not filed within one month after expiry of 15 days of deemed service of notice and thereafter, the criminal prosecution would not sustain as cause of action was lost unavailed. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed with contentions that the acquittal judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law; weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, went wrong in misrepresenting and misinterpreting the provisions and principles with reference to the factual evidence on record; under misconception arrived an erroneous finding, acquitted the accused instead of convicting him; that went wrong in saying complaint is barred by time though it is within time, and thereby, sought for setting aside the acquittal judgment of the trial Court by allowing the appeal and punish the accused as per law.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same referring to the propositions, whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-accused that the trial Courts judgment is supported by well-sounded reasons with reference to the facts, correct application of law and for this Court, while sitting in appeal, there is nothing to interfere, more particularly against the presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal, even to say any other view is also possible, is also not a ground to interfere, but for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1) Whether there is due service of statutory notice demanding payment within 15 days by intimation of dishonour of cheque and if so, whether the complaint filed within one month