I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The prime question, which this criminal revision has raised, is this: whether the date of drawing of a cheque or the period of validity of a cheque shall, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation of six months, as prescribed by Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'the NI Act'), include the date on which the cheque is drawn by the drawer. Yet another equally important question, raised in this criminal revision, is: whether the period of limitation shall, as prescribed by Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act be computed from the date of presentation of the cheque to the payee's bank or from the date of presentation of the cheque to the drawee bank?

2. The opposite party herein has lodged, as complainant, a complaint, on 13.04.2005, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, and this complaint has given rise to CR Case No. 463/2005, the complaint's case being, in brief, thus: The complainant is the President of Golaghat Truck Owners Association, which is an association of carrying and handling contractors of the Food Corporation of India. The accused has been hiring trucks from the complainant association from time to time. The accused had handed over to the complainant association a cheque, dated 25.07.2004, for Rs. 1,20,000.00 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Jorhat Branch. The complainant, on 22.01.2005, deposited the said cheque with Indian Bank, Golaghat Branch, in the account of the complainant association, for collection. By a memo, dated 25.01.2005, the drawee bank, i.e., Punjab and Sind Bank, Jorhat Branch, returned the cheque for reasons of insufficiency of fund. The then President of the complainant association issued, through their lawyer, a notice, on 22.02.2005, demanding payment of the cheque amount of Rs. 1,20,000.00 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Though the accused received the said notice on 25.02.2005, no payment was made and it was then that the complaint aforementioned was lodged, as indicated hereinbefore, on 13.04.2005.

3. Having taken cognizance of an offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act, when summons was issued to the accused, the accused impugned the same by way of revision, which gave rise to Criminal Revision No. 691/2005, on two grounds, namely,

(i) That the cheque, in question, was not presented to the drawee bank within the period of six months from the date on which the cheque was drawn and, hence, the complaint was, in terms of the provisions of Section 138(a), not maintainable, and (ii) that the complaint being barred by limitation and the limitation having not been condoned, taking of cognizance by the learned Court below was without jurisdiction and illegal and, hence, not maintainable.

4. By order, dated 14.12.2005, the revision was disposed of with direction to the accused-petitioner to appear in the trial Court. By order, dated 14.12.2005, aforementioned, the High Court also directed the learned Court below to decide the two questions aforestated, which had been raised by the accused-petitioner. The matter was accordingly heard and by order, dated 13.09.2006, the learned Court below has held that the cheque was presented within the statutory period of six months as contemplated by Section 138(a) of the NI Act, but there was, in all, a delay of two days in filing the complaint. Having reached these conclusions, the learned Court below accordingly condoned the delay. Aggrieved by the order, dated 14.12.2005, aforementioned, the accused has, now, impugned the same in the present revision.

5. I have heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party.

6. As this revision requires interpretation of the provisions of Section 138, the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of