GOVINDARAJUL, J

1. The subject place for consideration is in regard to interpretation of amendment of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, by Act 55 of 2002, on the aspect of limitation.

2. The appeal is coming on for admission, both the sides have submitted the arguments on merits. So, case is taken up for final disposal.

3. The complainant in C.C. No. 537/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC is the appellant in this appeal.

4. The parties will be referred according to their ranking before JMFC.

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

5. The facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are as under:

The case of the complainant is that it is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The company is engaged in the business of production and sale of fertilizer and pesticides.

5(a). It is the further case of the complainant that complainant has a branch at Bellary among other branches, in India. The accused has transacted with the complainant for the period commencing from January 2004 upto June 2004. The transaction so amounted resulted due, in sum of Rs. 19,41,462/-. This is the sum payable by the accused to the complainant. In pursuance of the said balance amount payable by the accused to the complainant, accused has issued three cheques namely: (i) cheque bearing No. 279409 dated 18/06/2004 in a sum of Rs. 6,29,855/-(ii) cheque bearing No. 279410 dated 18/06/2004 in as sum of Rs. 6,20,856/-, (iii) cheque bearing No. 279411 dated 18/06/2004 in a sum of Rs. 5,86,510/-all the cheques are drawn on UCO Bank, Gulbarga branch.

5(b). It is the further case of complainant that the cheques were presented for encashment, they returned un-paid with an endorsement of exceeds arrangement. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 02/07/2004, there was no reply. The cheques issued by the accused having returned un-paid with an endorsement of exceeds arrangement, the complainant contends that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instrument Act.

5(c). The presence of the accused is secured by the Learned JMFC. The Learned JMFC has permitted the parties to lead evidence. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are examined. Exs. P.1 to P.22 are marked. In response, D.W.1 examined is the accused. Ex.D 1 is marked.

5(d). `The Learned JMFC has believed the case of the complainant, has opined that the cheques are issued by the accused for the value of the goods purchased by him from the complainant, so the cheques are issued for the legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to the complainant. So the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, convicted the accused.

5(e). The used has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 52/2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court –I. The Learned District Judge has heard the parties. One of the contentions urged before the Learned District Judge is that the complaint is filed after the period of limitation. So, the complainant was under a duty to explain by sufficient cause, the reason to file the complaint after the period of limitation. No such sufficient cause is placed before the Court to condone the delay. So, prayed the dismissal of the complaint.

5(f). The Learned District Judge has found fault with Learned JMFC. The reasoning of the Learned District Judge on the subject reads as follows:

“………in compliance to the statutory requirement, statutory notice was issued under Ex.P.6 and demand was made and meted all other assertions on which grounds of attack was made by the accused in his defence. But, unfortunately on the point of limitation Learned Magistrate while taking cognizance itself has not applied his mind and even in the judgement no finding is given on this point. As the complaint itself is barred by the limitation, taking of cognizance of an offence against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act itself is wrong as such, it deserves to be dismissed.”

5(g). The find