M. R. Verma, J.: The fate of this petition hinges on the answer to the question as to how the period of 15 days notice under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter referred as the Act) is to be computed.

2. In the present case Cheque dated December 30, 1998 was issued by the petitioner to liquidate the liability. The Cheque bounced when presented to the banker for encashment. The respondent herein received information from the banker about the bouncing of the Cheque on March 19, 1999. He served demand notice dated April 3, 1999 and when the payment was not made within the prescribed period, he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. On the basis of the complaint, the accused/petitioner has been summoned by the learned trial Magistrate, Hence the present petition.

3. It was contended for the petitioner that the notice of demand was issued after expiry of 15 days from the date of knowledge of bouncing of the Cheque, therefore, the complaint and summoning orders are liable to be quashed. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the information about bouncing of the Cheque was received by the respondent (complainant before the trial Court) on March 19,1999, whereas the notice had been issued on April 3,1999, which was beyond the prescribed time of 15 days. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the day on which the information was received, i.e. March 19, 1999, is also to be taken into account while computing the period of 15 days. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the day on which information about the bouncing of the Cheque is received, has to be excluded while computing the prescribed period.

4. To appreciate the rival contentions for the parties, it would be expedient to reproduce Section 138 of the Act which reads as under: "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge; in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act. be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank "within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of 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 case 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."

5. A bare reading of Section 138 supra makes it clear that when any Cheque drawn by a person is returned unpaid by the banker, such person shall be guilty of the commission of an offence provided that clauses (a), (b) and (c) supra are satisfied. Clause (b) above shall stand satisfied if the payee or holder in due course of the Cheque, as the case may be, makes a de