1. This revision is directed against the order dated 31.1.2001 formulated by District Judicial Mobile Magistrate, Kathua, whereby proceedings initiated against the accused respondent in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dropped and complaint dismissed. A brief narration of the facts for the purpose of this revision may be noticed.

2. The respondent issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 20,000 drawn at Punjab National Bank Branch, Kathua in discharge of his debt liability. The cheque, when presented by the petitioner to the Bank, was returned uncashed with an endorsement insufficient funds. The petitioner-complainant served a legal notice dated 4.5.2000 upon the respondent in terms of Section 138 of the Act intimating about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding of payment of cheque amount alongwith interest @ 24% per annum within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The respondent having failed to discharge the liability by making the demanded cheque amount occasioned a cause of action to the petitioner-complainant to commence a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The Trial Court, after recording preliminary evidence, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and issued notice to the respondent. In response to the notice, respondent entered appearance and maintained that the notice is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, as it does not indicate the date of receipt of the notice and is defective and illegal. The complaint based on such notice is not maintainable and prayed for dropping the proceedings in an application made to this effect before the Trial Court.

3. On the filing of the demurrer by the petitioner complainant in opposing the contention of the accused that mention of the date of the receipt of notice is not mandatory, the Trial Court in placing reliance on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in case entitled Inderjeet Kour v. M/s Gandotra Trading and Leasing Corporation, 1998 KLJ 402, allowed the application, dropped the proceedings and dismissed the complaint in resultant thereof, which became subject-matter of challenge in this revision.

4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record, meticulously.

5. The sole controversy raised in this revision centres around a narrow compass as to whether the Court can take cognizance and initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act when the date of receipt of notice for making payment of the demanded cheque amount is neither reflected in the complaint nor mentioned in the preliminary evidence by the complainant. It may be pointed out at the first flush that to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant is obliged to prove its ingredients, which include the receipt of notice by the accused under clause (b). It is to be kept in mind that it is not the giving of the notice, which makes the offence but it is the receipt of the notice by the drawer, which gives the cause of action to the complainant to file the complaint within the statutory period. In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr., 1999 (7) SCC 510, the Apex Court considered the difference between giving of a notice and receipt of the notice and held:

On the part of the payee he has to make a demand by `giving a notice in writing. If that was the only requirement to complete the offence on the failure of the drawer to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of such `giving, the travails of the prosecution would have been very much lessened. But the Legislature says that failure on the part of the drawer to pay the amount should be within 15 days `of the receipt of the said notice. It is, therefore, clear that `giving notice in the context is not the same as receipt of notice. Giving is a process of which receipt is the accomplishment. It is for the payee to perform the fo