Honble SINGH, J.–Heard and perused the record. This petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 17.2.97 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur in complaint case No. 76/96. By the aforesaid order, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the notice served by the non- petitioner under Sec 138 (B) of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, is not invalid and he rejected the petitioners prayer for dropping the proceedings instituted against him.

(2). The facts of the case so far as they are necessary for the disposal of this petition may be summarised below.

(3). Non-petitioner Rajendra filed a complaint in the Court of Addl. Chief Judi- cial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur on 24.6.95. According to the averments made in the complaint, the non- petitioner-complainant carries on the business in Udaipur and deals with automotive and industrial lubricants and petroleum articles. It is alleged that the accused-petitioner purchased certain articles from the non-petitioner-complainant, the particulars of which are given in para No. 2 of the complaint. Three cheques were issued by the accused-petitioner. The first cheque was issued on 25th November, 1994. The second was issued on 5th April, 1995 and the third cheque was issued on 10th April, 1995. The amount of the first two cheques was duly paid by the bank but the amount of the third cheque dated 10th April, 1995 was not paid by the bank on the ground that the accused did not get sufficient amount in his bank account. The Bank of Baroda, Udaipur dis-honoured the above mentioned cheque on 6th May, 1995. The on-petitioner complainant sent a notice to the accused petitioner on 16th May, 1995. The notice was served on 18th May, 1995. The amount of the cheque was not paid inspite of the service of the notice. Therefore, the non-petitioner complainant filed a complaint alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.

(4). After conducting an inquiry under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 issued process against the accused petitioner. On 6th Jan., 1997, the accused petitioner moved an appli- cation praying that the proceedings against him should be dropped because the notice served upon him was bad in the eye of law. In this application, it was not pointed out as to what was the defect with which the notice was suffering. It was argued before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate that in the notice served on the accused, 15 days time should have been given to him to make the payment and since the place of 15 days only seven days time was given to him, therefore, the notice was bad in law. The arguments advanced by the accused petitioner do not find favour with the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1. He, therefore, rejected the application in which prayer for dropping the proceedings was made.

(5). Clause (b) of the proviso given to Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act requires that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, should make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and clause (c) of the proviso provides that the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, the liability under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act would arise. A bare perusal of the proviso given in Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act shows that the notice, which is required to be served by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, is not required by law to contain a statement to the effect that the amount should be paid within any period of time. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document