The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not barred by time, and non-compliance with the requirement of furnishing a list of witnesses was not a serious lacuna in the complaint.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of the criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner alleging that two cheques issued by the petitioner were presented to the Bank on 9-5-2000 and received Bank endorsement on 11-5-2000 informing that Account was closed and the cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, he got issued a notice on 12-5-2000 to the petitioner which was refused by the petitioner on 15-5-2000. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint on 24-6-2000. The Court was pleased to take cognizance of the offence and directed to issue notice to the petitioner which order is questioned in this petition.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the complaint is barred by time. To substantiate this argument, he submit- ied that the petitioner has refused to receive the notice on 15-5-2000 which solely indicates that the petitioner was not intending to pay the amount. Therefore, the period commences from 15-5-2000 and the complaint ought to have been filed within 30 days from thereafter. This argument is unsustainable. According to Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, drawer of the cheque is entitled for 15 days time to make payments. That would commence only from 16-5-2000 as he refused the notice only on 15-5-2000 and thereafter he is entitled for 15 days time and the respondent should not have filed the complaint within 15 days from 16-5-2000; on the other hand respondent has waited for expiry of 15 days and as the petitioner did not pay the amount, he filed the complaint on 24-6-2000 i. e. , within one month from the expiry of 15 days from the refusal of the notice. Therefore, I hold that the contention of the petitioner that it is barred by time cannot be accepted and is rejected. 3-A. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that complainant in this case has not furnished the list of witnesses as required under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, notice issued is illegal. In that connection, he has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in S. Ramaiah v H. K. Lakshmana Gowda wherein this Court has held that in view of Section 204 (2), the learned magistrate cannot issue summons or process unless list of witnesses is filed along with the complaint.

( 4 ) IN Criminal Revision Petition No. 370 of 2000 this Court also held that Section 204 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that, no summons shall be issued until a list of prosecution witnesses has been filed.

( 5 ) I had an occasion of dealing with the similar case and held that non-compliance with Section 204 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a serious lacuna in the complaint as the complainant is also entitled to furnish additional list of witnesses. However, if any prejudice is caused to the petitioner for non-furnishing of witness can be satisfied by giving sufficient time to set up his defence. In a case of this nature normally, there would be only one witness i. e. , person in whose favour the cheque is issued. Therefore, I hold that non-compliance of Section 204 (2) is not a slip in a case of this nature. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to secure list of witnesses from the complainant, if any and furnish the same to the accused and the accused shall be given reasonable time to set up his defence. With this observation, the petition is disposed of.

--- *** ---

.