The cause of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises immediately upon the return of a notice as 'refused', without needing a subsequent 15-day waiting period for payment.

JUDGMENT :

Gopinath P., J.

Criminal Appeal No.277/2023 has been filed challenging the judgment dated 30.12.2022 in S.T.No.351/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Temporary Court, Neyyattinkara through which a complaint filed by the appellant alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) by the 1^st respondent in the said appeal/accused was found not maintainable and the 1^st respondent/accused was acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Criminal Appeal No.278/2023 has been filed challenging the judgment dated 30.12.2022 in S.T.No.353/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Temporary Court, Neyyattinkara, through which a complaint filed by the appellant alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the 1^st respondent in the said appeal/accused was found not maintainable and the 1^st respondent/accused was acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C.

3. Criminal Appeal No.291/2023 has been filed challenging the judgment dated 30.12.2022 in S.T.No.352/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Temporary Court, Neyyattinkara through which a complaint filed by the appellant alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the 1^st respondent in the said appeal/accused was found not maintainable and the 1^st respondent/accused was acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C.

4. Crl.A.Nos.277/2023 and 278/2023 are filed by the same person, while the appellant/complainant in Crl.A.No.291/2023 is the brother of the appellant/complainant in the other two appeals. The 1^st respondent/accused in Crl.A.Nos.277/2023 and 291/2023 is the wife of the 1^st respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.278/2023.

5. The appellants/complainants contend that the respondents/accused used to consult the appellant/complainant in Crl.A.No.291/2023 for astrological advice and had requested him for a loan to tide over their financial difficulties. It is alleged that the appellant in Crl.A.No.291/2023 had advanced a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the 1^st respondent/accused in that case, while the appellant in Crl.A.Nos.277/2023 and 278/2023 had advanced a total sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the respondents in those appeals. According to the appellants, the respondents/accused had issued cheques for the repayment of the amounts borrowed, and since those cheques were dishonoured, they initiated proceedings alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The trial court concluded that the accused were entitled to be acquitted as the complaints were filed beyond the statutory period contemplated by Section 142 of the N.I.Act. A perusal of the judgments impugned in these appeals will indicate that the learned Magistrate had reached such a conclusion based on the law laid down by this Court in Jayakrishnan v. Unnikrishnan and another , 2015 (5) KHC 683 , where this Court took the view that where the statutory notice which is contemplated by the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I.Act had been returned with the endorsement 'refused', the cause of action for filing a complaint would begin to run from the date on which the notice was returned to the sender and not after 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice. In other words, it was held that when a notice is returned as 'refused', the period of limitation contemplated by the provisions under Section 142 of the N.I.Act would run from the date on which the notice was returned, and the question of granting 15 days for payment does not arise. It is not disputed before