( 1 ) COURTS are often accused of delaying disposal of cases. A peculiar question has cropped up in this case because a Metropolitan magistrate (in short m. M. ) has been too quick to take action on a complaint. The complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the respondent for dishonour of two cheques No. 615385 dated 20. 7. 2003 of Rs. 8,00,000/- and No. 615387 dated 20. 9. 2003 of Rs. 3,00,000/ -. Both the cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The return memo of the bank is dated 20. 9. 2003. The legal notice under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act was issued on 15. 10. 2003 through Regd. Post as well as through speed post. The postal acknowledgement card shows service on 18. 10. 2003. The complainant pleaded that the notices were duly received but no payment in respect of the dishonoured cheques was made within 15 days of the notice as was required by the law as well as by the notice. The complaint is presented on 31. 10. 2003. The Magistrate took cognizance on 31. 10. 2003 itself and directed issue of process on the same day. What is contended in this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is that the notice of demand being of 15. 10. 2003, despatched on 17. 10. 2003 and received on 18. 10. 2003, the complaint was filed within 15 days after service of notice and hence was pre-mature as the cause of action could accrue only after 15 days of the notice, i. e. , on 3. 11. 2003.

( 2 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the complaint was presented before the expiry of 15 days within which the petitioner/accused could have complied with the notice by paying the amount of the cheques. There is also no dispute about the fact that the Magistrate took cognizance before the expiry of the 15 days, i. e. , when the offence had not come into existence. According to the petitioner, since there was no offence on the date the complaint was presented, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance and, therefore, the order of summoning is bad and the complaint, therefore, can be quashed. At the same time, there is no plea on the side of the petitioner that the petitioner would have paid the cheque amount had the respondent given it the required time. In fact, the petitioner is disputing the very liability under the cheque and is categorical that it shall not pay the amount of the two cheques in question.

( 3 ) THE situation, therefore, is that the cause of action in any case would have arisen on the expiry of 15th day of the service which in this case would have been 3. 11. 2003. A nearly similar situation arose in the case of Narsingh Das tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani and Anr. , reported as I (2001) BC 113 (SC)=iv (2000) SLT 523=111 (2000) CCR 160 (SC)=2000 (2) JCC (SC) 615. In this case the conviction by the trial Court for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act was set aside by the High Court holding that the complaint was pre-mature. The Supreme Court held that mere presentation at an early date need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed and that such a pre-mature presentation would not confer any right upon the accused to be absolved from the criminal liability for the offence committed. In that case although the complaint was presented pre-maturely the Magistrate did not take cognizance immediately on presentation of the complaint. The Magistrate took cognizance subsequently and by the time the Magistrate took cognizance more than 15 days of the notice had passed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate had taken cognizance when the cause of action had matured and, therefore, there was no illegality in the proceedings. Explaining the law on the subject, the Supreme Court said:

"10. Mere presentation of the complaint in the Court cannot be held to mean that, its cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate. If the complaint is found to be pre-mature, it can await maturity or be returned to the comp