IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint for offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act not bearing signature of complainant cannot be taken to have been properly presented and if it is represented bearing signature of complainant beyond limitation period provided u/s 142 of the Act, no cognizance can be taken on it.

M. Karpagavinayagam, J- This is an application for quashing the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner by the complainant /respondent herein.

2. According to the complainant, the petitioner accused in discharge of the liability, issued two cheques one dated 29-9-1995 for Rs. 25, 703/- and another dated 4-10-1995 for a sum of Rs. 26,078/- in favour of the complainant and the same were dishonoured on presentation on 13-3-1996.

3. After issue of statutory notice, since no payment for the cheque amount was made, the complainant/petitioner on 25-4-1996 for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. When the complaint was presented the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham found that there was no signature by the complainant in the said complaint. So on the same date, it was returned with an endorsement that the petitioner’s signature is not obtained in the complaint.

5. The complaint, which was returned on 25-4-1996 was represented on 15-5-1996. On the same date a sworn statement was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate from the complainant. On the basis of the statement, the case was taken on file for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 110 of 1984.

6. On service of summons issued by the Court, the petitioner/ accused appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate and received the copies. On coming to know that the complaint was presented without the signature of the complainant on 15-5-1996, the petitioner has filed this application to quash the proceedings mainly on the ground that cognizance taken in this case is an invalid one, in view of the fact that the complaint was entertained beyond the period of limitation as contemplated under section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

7. Mr. K.A. Md. Mustafa, Counsel for the petitioner to substantiate the ground for quashing would elaborately submit by producing the copy of the complaint in which the signature of the complainant was not put and the copy of endorsement on 15-5-1996 on the representation, that the complaint ought to have been presented within one month from the date of commencement of the cause of action viz., the receipt of notice whereas, in the instant case, instead of filing the complaint on or before 6-5-1996, the signature of the complainant was obtained only on 15-5-1996 and then the complaints was filed and that pursuance of the invalid complaint are liable to be quashed.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Amizoha would contend that though this complaint was originally presented without the signature of the complainant on 25-4-1996, the mistake had been Magistrate and the complaint was represented on 15-5-1996 and only there after the cognizance was taken after recording the sworn statement on basis of the valid representation and as such, the cognizance must be construed to be a valid one and the proceedings must be allowed to be proceeded with against the petitioner. In support of his contention, he would rely upon the decision in G.K. Mazumdar v. Mohamad Kasam Mirza and another1, wherein it has been held, while dealing with a case under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, that the complaint by the Food Inspector even without the signature of the Food Inspector can be taken cognizance of.

9. I heard and I have given my anxious consideration to the respective continuations urged on either side.

10. At the outset, I shall mention Gujarat High Court in G.K. Mazumdar v. Mohamad kasam Mirza and another since the question of period of limitation is not the issue in that case. The incidental reference made in that case would not be of any use for the respondent/complainant to establish that the complaint need not be filed with the signature of the complainant to make a valid presentation.

11. In the instant case, admittedly, when it was returned on the ground that the signature of the complainant was not obtained the Counsel for the respondent received the