( 1 ) THE original complainant of Criminal Case No. 894 of 1989 of the Court of J. M. F. C. , Mirzapur has filed the present Revision Application against an order below Exh. 14 of the said Criminal Case. Initially, the complaint came to be dealt with by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Magistrate court, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, Rural District who was pleased to take cognizance on 7-7-1989, the date of the filing of the complaint and was pleased to order that process be issued for offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ).

( 2 ) THE matter thereafter, came to be transferred to the said Court of j. M. F. C. and to be precise the 4th Court and the application Exh. 14 came to be given by the respondents-accused of the said Criminal Case on 6-1-1990. The learned Magistrate heard the parties and by his order dated 31-1-1990 allowed the application and acquitted the accused. Now, we are not concerned whether he could have acquitted the accused under Sec. 203 of Cr. P. C. or what order should have he passed at the end of hearing of the said application if at all he was inclined to accept * praying to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 31-1-1990 passed by Judicial magistrate, First Class Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 894 of 1989. (Only a part of the judgment approved for reporting is published.) the contentions of the accused. We are concentrating entirely on the question on the basis of various dates given in the complaint, was it possible for the learned Magistrate to hold that the complaint is time-barred ? My answer is in the negative.

( 3 ) THE cheques were issued on different dates and they were all post-dated. Each cheque was for Rs. 10,000. 00. They were 5 in number, but only 4 are disclosed in the complaint. As per the details given in the complaint paper book page 15, two cheques were issued on 30-4-1989 and 2 were dated 3-5-1989. The cheques were lodged with the complainants Bank for being realised and they returned dishonoured on 17-5-1989. The complainant, therefore, issued a notice dated 29-5-1989 which came to be refused on 12-6-1989. This was followed by filing of a complaint on 7-7-1989. The said Act came to be amended in the year 1988 and Chapter 17 has been added whereby a new offence came to be created pertaining to dishonour of cheques for insufficient funds etc. For this purpose, we have to refer to the said newly added Chapter in the said Act. The offence as spelt out in Sec. 138 has been subjected to certain provisos thereof and the said in provisos are required to be quoted extensively. They are quoted hereunder :" (A) the cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the may be to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability". Now, when we read the aforesaid 3 provisos, it becomes clear that the payee or a holder in due course of the cheque is required to present the cheque within six months from the date of its issuance or within a period of its validity whichever is earlier. On this count, in the instant case, there is no doubt whatsoever. Second proviso is to the effect that within days of receipt of information by the payee or the holder in due course regarding the return of cheque unpaid he should make a demand by g