IMPORTANT POINT
Mere fact that date of delivery of notice u/s 138 Clause (C) of proviso of Negotiable Instruments Act is not mentioned in the complaint, does not affect maintainability of complaint.

O.P. Jain, J. - The above six cases are being disposed of by a common judgment because the facts and law applicable to them are almost identical.

2. Six cases were instituted by opposite party Beerbal Dass Jindal against applicant No.2 Rejendra Prasad Malviya, Proprietor of S.K. Trading Company under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 409 IPC for the purposes of mentioning the facts of the case, the complaint filed by Beerbal Dass Jindal, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 896 of 1992 is treated as the leading case. According to the Annexure to the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. (hereinafter called as 'the petition'), Beerbal Dass is the Managing Director of Nath Roller Flour Mills, Muzaffarnagar. The said Mill used to supply Maida, Sooji and flour etc. to the accused S.K. Trading Company and Rajendra Prasad Malviya is the selling agent of the Mill. After sale of the goods the accused used to make payment by draft and cheques etc. from time to time. On the 15th March, 1991 accused Rajendra Prasad Malviya issued a cheques for fifty thousand rupees drawn on Punjab National Bank, Khari Baoli, Delhi to the office of the Mill. The cheque bears the signatures of the accused Rajendra Prasad Malviya and the rubber stamp of S.K. Trading Company. The Mill gave the cheque to its banker, Union Bank of India, Muzaffarnagar for collection but it was dishonoured because there was no sufficient balance in the account of the accused. This information was communicated to the Mill by its banker on 2nd October, 1991. On the 6th of October, 1991 the Mill served a notice on the accused through its Advocate Sri Ramesh Chandra. The notice sent by registered A.D. as well as by I.P.C. at the office as well as the residential address of accused Rajendra Prasad Malviya was served on him but he did not make payments even, after a lapse of fifteen days from the date of receipts of notice Therefore, the complaint under Sections 138/142 and 400 I.P.C. was filed by the Mill through its Managing Director, Beerbal Dass on 8.9.91.

3 After recording the statement of Beerbal Dass under Section 200 Cr. P.C. summoning order was passed by the CJ.M. Muzaffarnagar on 31.10.1991 An application was filed by the complainant that the accused may evade the service of summons and may abscond and therefore, the learned C.J.M. issued non-bail able warrant against the accused.

4. The present applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. have been filed for quashing the above six complaints. Learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for non-applicant No.1 as also the learned A.G.A. have been heard. That only contention that has been advanced on behalf of applicant in each case is that the complaint filed by the Mill does not disclose the date on which the notice is said to have been served on the accused and, therefore, complaint is not maintainable. This argument has been advanced particularly in Criminal Misc. Case No.6111 of 1992. So far as the remaining three Applications Nos. 6109 and 6110 and 6112 of 1992 are concerned, the contention is slightly different and it will be mentioned at a later stage. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the applicant provisions of Sections 138 to 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act should be summarised. Section 138 of the Act lays down that where any cheque is drawn by a person for discharge of any debt or other liability and the cheque is returned by the Bank due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the drawer of the cheque, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Section 138 has three provisions which lays down that this section shall apply only where a cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months, and where the, cheque is dishonoured a notice is issued to the drawer of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of information of dishonour and drawer failed to mak