Period of limitation to be calculated from the date of issuance of earlier notice.

This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate V. Coimbatore in Crl. M.P. No. 3053 of 2002 in C.C. No. 843 of 2001, dismissing the petition filed for dropping proceedings against the accused/petitioner of offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the Act').

The circumstances under which the said order came to be passed is as follows :-

(a) The complainant/respondent herein namely M/s. Cauvery Timber Company Pvt. Ltd. represented by C. Subramanian filed a complaint against the accused/petitioner for offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the averments that the accused-company represented by its proprietor, namely Vinod M. Patel had purchased timber under Invoice No. 157 dated 17-5-2000 for Rs. 3,69,409. Invoice No. 170 dt. 20-5-2000 for Rs. 10,90,149/- and Invoice No. 182 dated 27-5-2000 for Rs. 3,59,096/- totalling in all for a sum of Rs. 18,18,654/-. In discharge of the abovesaid liability, three cheques dated 20-4-2001, 30-4-2001 and 27-4-2001 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 1,30,860/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- respectively, totalling in all a sum of Rs. 4,0,860/-, drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Senkottah in favour of the complainant/respondent were issued. On presentation for collection in the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Main Branch, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore-1, they were returned dishonoured on the ground "Insufficient Funds". Hence, the matter was informed over phone to the accused/petitioner whereupon, direction was issued to represent the three cheques again for collection. Believing the said representation, all the three cheques were again represented for collection in the same Bank. However, they received the same fate as before. Hence, a notice dated 24-9-2001 as contemplated under the Act was issued upon the accused/petitioner to pay the money within fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the said notice. On receipt of the said notice, a reply dated 2-10-2001 was sent, thereby admitting the purchase of timber. However, a denial has been made with regard to the issuance of cheques to the effect that they were issued only as security. Since the money had not been paid within the stipulated time, the present complaint has been lodged.

(b) Upon taking cognizance, process was issued to the accused/petitioner. On appearance, a preliminary objection stating that the prosecution is barred by limitation was urged. After hearing both parties, the contention of the accused/petitioner was negatived by the learned Magistrate mainly on the ground that it is only during the course of trial, the issue raised by the accused/petitioner could be decided. It is against this order, the present revision has been filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner has raised the same points that has been urged before the Court below. His main ground of attack here in this revision is that the prosecution is barred by limitation. According to him, though no doubt the cheques were issued to the complainant and for a moment admitting the entirety of the complaint and the documents produced therewith, it clearly establishes that the prosecution is barred by limitation.

To substantiate the argument advanced above, the counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner had adverted to the facts mentioned in the complaint. According to him, the intimation relating to the dishonour of the cheques, which were represented for collection on 8-9-2001, was received by the complainant/respondent on 14-9-2001 and it is on the receipt of the said notice, the complainant/respondent appears to have issued a lawyer's notice dated 15-9-2001, mentioning about the dishonour of the cheques, which are the subject-matter of the case.

The crux of the issue high-lighted by the learned counsel from the abovementioned facts is that in the notice dated 15-9-2001 issued by the complainant/respondent, mention has been made that it is on be