The cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot arise before expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice upon the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Suraj Kumar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Ms. Mahua Palit, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1-State.

3. None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

4. The present criminal revision is directed against the Judgment dated 21.03.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-IX, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but set aside the part of the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.19,50,000/- under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and remanded back the case to the learned trial court to rehear the parties on the point of sentence and pass the order in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Vijjayan –vs- Bebi reported in AIR 2000 SC 528 and also in view of the provision contained under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the criminal appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed.

5. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 12.08.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 333 of 2006 / T.R. No. 461 of 2011 had convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further one month and had further directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- to the Complainant under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. However, the learned trial court held that Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted and established in the present case.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:- 2012 (1) JLJR 220 Prahlad Rai Agrawal –vs- The State of Jharkhand, 2012 (1) JLJR 48 Hari Ram Sariwala @ Hari Ram –vs- The State of Jharkhand, 2011 (3) JLJR 311 Shahid Ali –vs- State of Jharkhand & Anr. and 2008 (2) JLJR 22 (SC) K. Prakashan –vs- P.K Surenderan.

7. The learned counsel submitted that the learned courts below have not properly appreciated the evidences on record and the presumption, that the cheque was drawn against a liability, has been duly rebutted by the petitioner in the light of preponderance of probability. He submitted that the demand cheques were issued by the petitioner for the purpose of admission in Law College, but the same were misused by the complainant and there was no legal debt for which the cheques were issued.

8. He further submitted that even the timeline prescribed for filing a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not been satisfied in the present case and the case itself was pre-matured. He submitted that notice for cheque bouncing was issued on 17.02.2006 and the postal receipt has been exhibited, but there is no document to show the service of notice and accordingly, at best, the deemed service of notice could be taken as 18.03.2006, but the present case was filed on 17.03.2006. He submitted that even after deemed service of notice, the petitioner has time of 15 days to respond to the legal notice or to pay the same. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid list of dates, the case itself was filed pre-matured and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Arguments on behalf of the State

9. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State opposed the prayer and submitted that the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction as they do not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

Findings of this Court

10. Af