JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking dismissal of complaint case No. 7834/2019, titled as "Gurbachan Singh Vs. Simranpal Singh Suri" and for setting aside the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the petitioner in the complaint in question as well as order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the learned Revisional Court upholding the summoning order.

2. As per the complaint, petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.10 Lacs, from respondent No.2, who had lent the same vide two cheques bearing Nos. 697399 and 697400, dated 26.02.2016, amounting to Rs.5 Lacs each, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Delhi Trade Finance Branch, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. It is stated in the complaint that when in April, 2019 i.e. after approximately three years, respondent No.2 approached petitioner for repayment of loan amount, petitioner assured that he will return the entire amount and in order to discharge his part liability, issued a cheque bearing No.032753, dated 01.05.2019, amounting to Rs.10 Lacs, drawn on ICICI Bank, C Block, Janakpuri Branch, New Delhi, which was dishonored on presentation in the bank with the remarks "funds insufficient" and was returned vide bank advice memo dated 22.05.2019. It is the case of complainant that when he informed petitioner about dishonour of the cheque, he paid no heed to his complaint and thereafter, the complainant served a legal demand notice dated 31.05.2019 upon him and despite service of demand notice through speed post as well as approved courier on 03.06.2019, when petitioner failed to make the payment, complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was instituted against the petitioner on 20.07.2019 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and vide impugned order dated 26.09.2019 summons were directed to be issued against the petitioner.

3. The order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, was challenged by petitioner vide Criminal Revision Petition No. 762/2019 and the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 27.11.2020 dismissed the said petition with cost of Rs.50,000/-, which is under challenge in this petition.

4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) filed by respondent No.2, without that being accompanied by application under Section 142 (b) NI Act for condoning the delay in filing the complaint. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that learned Metropolitan Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the complaint, did not take note of the fact that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period and did not rightly calculate the days and therefore, direction to issue summons to the petitioner, is illegal and without jurisdiction.

5. In support of his case, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 11 SCC 759, which reads as under:-

"21. At this stage, we would also like to refer to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 37, 3rd Edn., Para 143 at p. 83 which provides for calculation of a calendar month:

"143. Calendar month running from arbitrary date.-When the period prescribed is a calendar month running from any arbitrary date the period expires with the day in the succeeding month immediately preceding the day corresponding to the date upon which the period starts; save that, if the period starts at the end of a calendar month which contains more days than the next succeeding month, the period expires at the end of the latter month."

22. Drawing a conclusion from the abovementioned authorities, we are of the opinion that the use of word "from" in Section 138(a) requires exclusion of the first day on which the cheque was drawn and inclusion of the last day within which such ac