S. P. TALUKDAR, J.

( 1 ) THE present case arises out of an application under section 401 read with section 482 of tha Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) GRIEVANCES of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows : the petitioner is the Managing Director of Medcon Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd. having its office at East Agarpara, Kolkata-700109 and also having its office at AB-287, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064 P. S. Bidhannagar. On 7th August, 2002 one Purnendu Basu, as authorized representative of Datacon systems Pvt. Ltd. , filed a petition of complaint under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Court of Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, thereby giving rise to case No. 3355/02.

( 3 ) IT was alleged in the said petition of complaint that the present petitioner in discharge of legal liability on behalf of Medcon Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd. issued two cheques in favour of Datacon Systems Pvt. Ltd, bearing Nos. 572707 for a aum of Rs. 52,545/- and 572808 dated 01. 02. 2002 for a sum of Rs. 51,000/-both drawn on United Bank of India, Hatibagan Branch, Calcutta-700004. The said two cheques, though deposited properly within the validity period, were returned unpaid on 24. 5. 2002 for the reason "exceeds Arrangements". By a registered demand notice dated 06. 06. 2002, the opposite party herein demanded total sum of Rs. 1,03,545/- but the said notice was returned on 23. 07. 2002 with the postal remark "not Claimed".

( 4 ) THE present petitioner filed an application on 08. 07. 2004 assailing the order of taking cognizance and challenging further proceedings of the said case. By order dated 12. 08. 2005, the learned 11th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, calcutta without dealing with the factual premises and the legal principles rejected the said application.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order dated 12. 08. 2005, the petitioner filed the instant application praying for quashing of the proceedings.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate reflects misappreciation of the facts and the law. It was stated that the complaint was filed after expiry of one month from the date of cause of action, i. e. the period of limitation provided under section 142 (b) of the N. I. Act. Referring to section 27 of the General clauses Act, it was submitted that the sender having despatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, it should be deemed to have been served on the addressee Attention of the Court was invited to the fact that the complainant did not mention the date of refusal of notice.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in the case of Darshan Singh vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in 2001 (1) CHN 235 in support of this contention that once the cause of action started running, it Cannot remain suspended subsequently. It was contended that under clause (C) to the proviso to section 138 the cause of action starts running from the date of receipt of the notice but not from the date of receipt of the "acknowledgement due card'. Relying upon the said decision it was submitted that the receipt of the acknowledgement due card' by the complainant is not material for the purpose of computation of limitation.

( 8 ) IT was further submitted that the period prescribed for filing a complaint can neither be extended by section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor by section 5 of the Limitation Act. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the notice in the instant case was sent on 06. 06. 2002 and 30 days period is required to be counted from the date of refusal.

( 9 ) REFERENCE was also made to the decision in the case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhy Balan and Anr. , reported in 2000 C Cr. LR (SC) 94, while submitting that "giving is a process of which receipt is the accomplishment. It is f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document