Manju Goel J— This is a revision petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure against the Order dated 18.1.2003 by Shri Yogesh Khanna, ASJ dismissing the application for discharge filed by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises two points. The first point is that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in which the impugned Order was passed, was filed by an attorney on the behalf of the respondent company, namely, M/s Winter Misra Diamond Tools Ltd., but no resolution has actually been placed on the record evincing the decision of the company to appoint the attorney or to file the compliant. Secondly it is submitted that in respect of the three cheques, namely dated 28.2.1996,15.3.1996 and31‘.3.1996, the complaint was barred by limitation prescribed by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. So far as the first contention is concerned, the power of attorney admittedly mentions that it was granted pursuant to a resolution. It will be a matter of trial as to whether actually a resolution was passed. The second contention is about limitation. Three letters were written by the respondent to the petitioners dated 5.4.1996, 15.4.1996 and 29.4.1996. In the first letter of 5.4.1996 the petitioner was informed about the non-payment of the cheque No.279720 dated 15.3.1996 of Rs. 90,000 However, an amount of Rs. 1,80, 720 has been demanded in the letter as outstanding on Invoice No. GRG/1094 dated 16.2.1996. Similarly, in the next letter dated 15.4.1996, the complainant/respondent informed the petitioner in respect of dishonour of cheque for Rs. 90,000 being No.279719 dated 28.2.1996. Again the same amount, viz., Rs. 1,80, 720 under the same invoice has been demanded. In the third letter, the petitioner is informed of dishonour of cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs being cheque No.279717 dated 31.3.1996. However, instead of making a demand for the cheque amount this letter demands an amount of Rs. 3,40, 187.87 paise as outstanding on Invoice No. BWD/953 dated 3.2.1996. If the period of 15 days for completion of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has to be counted from the date of these letters, the complaint will be time barred. However, it is clear that these letters do not intend to be notices stipulated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. None of these letters make a demand for the cheque amount. None of these letters asked for payment within 15 days. Nor is there any threat that any complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is contemplated. These notices are demand notices for the amounts due under two invoices. The period of limitation in respect of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be counted from these three letters.

4. Admittedly, the cheques were presented again sometime in June, 1996 and on dishonour of the cheques a notice through Virmani and Virmani Law Firm was issued. Counted from this notice the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was in time.

5. No other point is raised. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed accordingly.

*******