JUDGMENT :

S.P. Garg, J.

1. The present appeal has been pre­ferred by the appellant M/s. Total Finaelf In­dia Ltd. challenging order dated 17.02.2007 in Complaint Case No. 597771/04 under sec­tion 138 Negotiable instruments Act by which the respondent was acquitted.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the written synopsis filed by the respondent. It reveals that the appellant filed a complaint case under section 138 Negotiable Instru­ments Act alleging that the respondent com­mitted default in making payments for the goods supplied to her being distributor. It was alleged that with great persuasion, the respondent issued nine cheques detailed in Para 06 of the complaint amounting to 11,08,546.78/- for the outstanding dues. The cheques when presented were dishonoured with the remarks 'not arranged for' vide bank return memo dated 21.10.1997 which was received on 12.11.1997. Demand notice dated 23.11.1997 Sent to the respondent vide Registered AD was returned with the en­dorsement 'not met' on 02.12.1997. The re­spondent was served of the legal notice sent through UPC. The respondent failed to make the payment despite demand notice.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the complaint case was within limitation as the cause action arose on 02.12.1997 when the complainant came to know 'refusal' of the notice sent by Regis­tered AD. The respondent, in the reply to the demand notice falsely alleged that she was served with the legal notice sent through UPC on 27.11.1997. The Trial Court fell into grave error in holding that the complaint case filed on 15.01.1998 was barred by limi­tation. He further urged that the cheques in question were issued by the respondent in the discharge of liability to clear the outstanding dues for purchase of lubricants sent through various invoices (Ex.CW-1/6 to CW-1/24). The distributorship agreement dated 17.04.1997 was proved as Ex.CW-1/4. The cheques in question were not given as ‘security’ as alleged. The respondent could not establish that goods supplied were defective; no such complaint was ever lodged by her with the complainant company.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent in the written synopsis emphasized that the complaint was barred by limitation as the legal demand notice sent through UPC was received on 27.11.1997 and it was duly conveyed to the appellant in the reply to the demand notice. The complainant did not adduce cogent evidence to prove that the cheques in question were issued towards existing debt or liability. The Trial Court has given valid reasons to acquit the respondent and no interference is called for.

5. It is undisputed that the demand notice dated 23.11.1997 (Ex.CW-1/44) was sent through Registered AD and UPC. The postal receipt and UPC receipt have been exhibited as Ex.CW-1/45 & Ex.CW-1/46. The demand notice sent through Registered AD was returned undelivered (Ex.CW-1/47). The respondent admitted receipt of demand notice through UPC. Reply (Ex.CW-1/48) to the demand notice is also not at issue. In the reply (Ex.CW-1/48), the respondent claimed receipt of notice on 27.11.1997. Admittedly, notice sent through Registered AD was not delivered to the respondent. The respondent categorically claimed on 08.12.1997 that the demand notice sent through UPC was received by her on 27.11.1997. Apparently, 27.11.1997 is the date when the service of legal notice was effected upon the respondent and the cause of action arose to the appellant that day. The respondent was not aware if the complainant had sent any demand notice through Registered AD. The endorsement on the registered envelope by the Postal Authorities reveals that on 02.12.1997 the addressee did not meet the post-man. The registered letter was returned to the complainant. It cannot be presumed that the legal notice came to the respondent’s knowledge on 02.12.1997. The Trial Court gave cogent reasons to conclude that the complaint case was filed beyond the period of limit