( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with section 401, Cr. P. C. by the complainant in P. C. R. No. 7 of 1992 on the file of the learned Munsiff and JMFC, Nelamangala taluk, Bangalore District, challenging the order dated 7-11-1992 by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the dismissal of the complaint by the learned Magistrate are as under: The revision petitioner had lent an amount of Rs. 22,000/- on 20-10-1991 to the respondent and the respondent had issued a cheque bearing No. 0877901 dated 30-11-1991 for Rs. 17,000/- towards the same. The revision petitioner presented it for encashment on 11-4-1992 and it came to be dishonoured on the same day with endorsement "funds insufficient". The revision petitioner issued a notice of demand on 23-4-1992 and the same came to be served on the respondent on 25-4-1992. As no payment was made within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of service of notice, revision petitioner filed a complaint alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent on 3-6-1992.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the petitioner-complainant and found that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and refused to issue process and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, revision petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of dismissal of the complaint.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view with regard to the complaint being barred by limitation, taken by the learned Magistrate is erroneous and according to him, the cause of action for filing the complaint accrues to the petitioner only after a lapse of 15 days from the date of service of notice of demand and the complaint instituted within one month from that date is in time and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order dismissing the complaint. Learned counsel for the respondent argued supporting the order of the learned magistrate.

( 5 ) THE question for consideration is whether the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation is to be upheld.

( 6 ) IN this case, facts disclose that money was borrowed and acheque dated 30-11-1991 was issued to the revision petitioner and he presented it for encashment on 11-4-1992 and it came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient". According to the revision petitioner, he issued a notice dated 23-4-1992 and it was served on the respondent on 25-4-1992.

( 7 ) SECTION 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc. , of funds in the accounts. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment or any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the Bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to that credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque, or with both: provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless, (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the che