The impact of Section 142-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act on the limitation period for filing a petition of complaint and the mandatory compliance with the provision of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuance of summons.

Debi Prosad Dey, J.

In spite of service of notice none appears on behalf of the opposite parties. The affidavit of service filed by the petitioner shall be retained with the records.

Challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 3rd November, 2014 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar in case no. 2260 of 2014 (GR no. 369 of 2014) wherein and where under learned Magistrate has issued summons against the petitioner and other accused persons after examining the representative of complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with such order the petitioner has filed this revisional application on the ground that the petition of complaint is barred by the Law of Limitation in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015(1) Crimes 73 (SC) Shibgiri Associates and Ors. v. Mate so Mineral(India Pvt. Ltd.) and for non-compliance of the mandatory provision of law as contemplated under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The complainant company having its office at 153 Ground Floor, Lila House Okhla Industrial Estate-III New Delhi- 110020 and it's head office at C 56/41, Sector- 62, Noida Goutam Budha Bihar, Uttar Pradesh gave some equipment to the petitioner against rental charges and the petitioners accordingly issued two cheques of Rs. 16,00000/-(Sixteen Lakhs) and Rs. 5,00000/-(Five Lakhs) each drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector-III, Salt Lake Calcutta- 700106 towards discharge of their part liability. The said cheques were presented for encashment with Axis Bank at Noida but the cheques were dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer". Legal notices were duly served upon the petitioner and thereafter a petition of complaint was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, District Courts at Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goutam Budha Nagar however directed for return of such petition of complaint in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court (Dasarot Rupra Singh Rathore v. State of Maharashtra) and directed the complainant to present the said petition of complaint before appropriate Court having jurisdiction.

4. Thereafter, the petition of complaint was filed in the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bidhannagar and learned Magistrate after examining the complaint under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 issued process against all the accused persons for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Moitra appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that such petition of complaint was returned for presentation on 9th September, 2014 but the same was filed before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar on 3rd November, 2014 and accordingly, the petition of complaint is barred by Limitation in view of the decision of Shibgiri Associates and Ors. (Supra).

6. Learned Advocate further contended that leaned Magistrate while issuing summons against the accused persons did not comply with section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and accordingly, the order of issuance of summons being contrary to the provisions of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ought to be set aside in terms of the decision reported in (2014)14 SCC 638 (Vijay Dhanuka & Ors v. Najima Mamtaj & Ors.). Admittedly, it was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shibgiri Associates and Ors (Supra) and Dasarath Rupsingh Rathore v. State of Maharashtra that the petition of complaint as contemplated in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has to be filed within the jurisdiction of the Court, where the cheques were drawn. In other words, the cheques in the case under reference were drawn on Punjab National Bank, Secotr-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106 and accordingly, the Courts having jurisdiction in respect of Punjab National Bank, S