PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, J.

(1) CRR No. 1766 of 1998, CRR No. 1767 of 1998, CRR No. 2110 of 1998 and CRR No. 2111 of 1998 are being disposed of by this common judgment and order since parties are the same and one common question of law is involved in all these four proceedings.

(2) IN all the revisional applications the accused is the petitioner who in CR Case No. 774 of 1997 (CRR No. 1766 of 1998) issued a cheque in favour of the opposite party i.e. Doluibazar Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. being represented by its Secretary Saktipada Ghosh for Rs. 3 lac on 07.11.1997 towards discharge of debt. He further issued a cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- on 10. 11. 1997 in favour of the said opposite party towards repayment of loan in connection with it burdwan (CR No. 773 of 1997) pending in the 3rd Court, Burdwan out of which the CRR No. 1767 of 1998 has arisen. Similarly in CR No. 775 of 1997 out of which the CRR No. 2110 of 1998 has arisen the petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the opposite party for Rs. 1 lac on 08. 11. 1997 towards repayment of loan. In connection with CR No. 772 of 1997 pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Burdwan out of which the CRR no. 2111 of 1998 has arisen the petitioner issued a cheque on 11. 11. 1997 in favour of the opposite party for Rs. 3 lac towards repayment of the loan. All the cheques were bounced because of insufficiency of fund in the account of the petitioner. Then followed statutory notice under section 138 (b) of the N. I. Act. Repayments were not made in respect of the bounced cheques and consequently four separate petition of complaints were lodged.

(3) IN all the four cases statutory notice was served on 01.12.1997 and all the four complaints were filed on 15.12.1997.

(4) THE only question involved in the four revisional applications is whether the four petition of complaints were premature or not. Clause (c) of section 138 of the N. I. Act provides that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:

" (c) The drawer of such cheques fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice".

(5) SECTION 142 of the Act reads as follows:

"cognizance of offences.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138; (c) no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence punishable under section 138. "

(6) THUS according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner was not given a complete 15 days time which he was entitled to under the law from the date of receipt of the notice so as to arrange for payment of the monies towards discharge debt or legal liability; and before expiry of the 15 days the petition of complaints were filed in violation of the provision of clause (b) of section 142 read with clause (c) of section 138 of the Act, According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner learned Magistrate was legally erroneous in taking cognizance of premature complaints and to hold that the petitioner did not make payment of the money and evaded payment is of no good because when the statute provides that criminal action can be initiated only after expiry of 15 days the payee of the cheque has to wait for the expiry of the statutory period and a complaint lodged before the expiry of the statutory period cannot be taken cognizance of with respect to the offence alleged and such complaint truly is not a complaint to redress a legal wrong.

(7) MR. Ashok Kumar Chakraborty, learned