The starting point of limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is after the expiry of 15 days from the receipt of the demand notice by the drawer of the cheque, and the amendment to Section 142(b) introducing the provision for condonation of delay does not have retrospective effect.

Tapash Mookherjee, J.

1. This is an appeal against a judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta in complaint case No. 3000/2000 (T.R. Case No. 366/2000) dated 20.07.2011. The case in the Trial Court was a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the N. I. Act). By the aforesaid judgment and order the Trial Court acquitted all the Respondents/Accused of the acquisition under Section 138 of the N. I. Act.

2. The Appellant/Complainant Annapurna Cast Limited is a company registered under the companies Act. Accused No. 1. M/s Akshaya Technologies (P) Ltd. the Respondent No. 1 in this appeal, is also a Company and the other three Respondents in this appeal are the directors of the company.

3. The facts leading to the appeal in short, are as follows:-

4. The Appellant and the Respondents had business relations between them. In usual course of such business transactions the Appellant Company supplied some goods to the Respondent/Company and in partial discharge of their existing liabilities the Respondent/Company issued two cheques, dated 03.10.1999 and 04.10.1999 for Rs. 1,40,000.00 (rupees one lakh forty thousand only) each, both drawn on Bank of India, Clubside Branch at Ranchi in favour the Complainant/Company. Both those cheques were deposited for encashment by the Complainant/Company in their account with Bank of India, Lindsay Street Branch, Calcutta and both those cheques were returned unpaid for insufficiency of fund in the account of the Respondent/Company. Demand notice was, therefore, sent by the Appellant/Company but in spite of such notice the Respondent/Company did not pay the money demanded. The Appellant/Company therefore lodged a complaint against the Respondent/Company and its Directors under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The Respondents appeared and contested the case on several grounds one of which was the ground of limitation prescribed in Section 142 (b) of the N. I. Act. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Considering the evidence thus adduced, the Trial Court held that the Appellant's claim was barred by limitation and the Trial Court dismissed the Appellant/Complainant's case on such ground of limitation alone and acquitted all the respondents from the case. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order of acquittal the Appellant/Company preferred the present appeal.

5. The Trial Court has discussed the issue of limitation at length and no other issue involved in the case has been discussed or decided by the Trial Court.

6. The following dates are very much important to decide the issue of limitation.

7. The two cheques in question were issued by the Respondent/Company, one on 03.10.1999 and the other on 04.10.1999, both for Rs. 1,40,000.00 (rupees one lakh forty thousand only) and according to the Appellant both the cheques had been presented for encashment within the period of their validity and admittedly both those cheques were returned dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the Respondent/Company and the fact of such dishonour came to the knowledge of the Appellant on 06.04.2000. Thereafter, demand notices were issued by the Appellant through registered post with A.D. and both the notices were posted on 18.04.2000. Thereafter, the A.D. Cards did not reach the Appellant in due course and hence the Appellant wrote letters to the Postal authority on 12.05.2000 and 17.05.2000 for information regarding the service of those letters. The Appellant thereafter received the information by the letter of the postal authority dated 03.06.2000, 17.06.2000 and 23.06.2000 and came to know that the demand notice had been duly served upon the Respondent/Company on 24.04.2000. Subsequently the Appellant filed the complaint in the Trial Court on 29.06.2000. It is, therefore, found that the complaint was not filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arose, as pres