The legal provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, including the requirements for filing a complaint under section 138, the validity of notice of demand, and the liability of partners in a dissolved firm, were central to the judgment.

The petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C.No.1146 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – II, Pondicherry is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after referred to as the Act) and has filed the above petition seeking quashing of further proceedings in C.C.No.1146 of 2007.

2. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-from the complainant for his business purpose; the accused has given a cheque bearing No.249039 dated 26.08.2005 for Rs.2,00,000/-drawn on UCO bank, Bazar Branch, Pondicherry; when the cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned unpaid; in the cheque returning memo dated 010. 2005, the reason for return of the cheque is mentioned as "insufficient funds"; Notice for demand dated 110. 2005 was sent to the petitioner which had been received on 110. 2005 by somebody on his behalf; neither any reply was sent nor the cheque amount was paid. Hence a complaint was filed on 11. 2005.

3. The petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings on the following grounds viz.,

.(1) The petitioner has not received money from the complainant / respondent nor aware of him.

.(2) The petitioner has not received any money nor issued any cheque in favour of the respondent.

.(3) The petitioner is not a partner on the date of alleged commission of offence and on the date it was only a proprietorship.

.(4) The petitioner has not received any notice from the respondent.

.(5) The respondent did not sent any notice to firm (or) its partners who alleged to have borrowed the money as mandate U/s 141 of the Act.

(6) As per the averments found in the notice, the notice was received by the firm through somebody at the firms address on 110. 2005 and they have not given 15 days time as mandated under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act and filed the complaint on 011. 2005 the 15th day and thus the complaint fails for not following the statutory provisions.

.(7) The petitioner is not holding any account and the cheque was not issued to respondent and the Name of respondent had been filled up by using an undated cheque signed by the petitioner in his capacity as partner.

.(8) Admittedly the firm has not been arrayed as accused and the petitioner alone should not have been arrayed as accused.

.(9) The notice sent to the petitioner as partner of the firm is not sufficient.

4. Heard Mr.S.Sundaresan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Suresh learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Mr.S.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the above said contentions raised in the quash petition and in support of the above said contention, he relied upon the following decisions reported in:

.(1) 2006 (4) CTC 529 (B.Raman and others Vs. Shusun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd.,).

.(2) 2007 (1) CTC 291 (Lakshmi Srinivas Saving & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd, rep. by its present Foreman, N.Sathiyam Vs. S. Bhojarajan).

.(3) 2007 (1) CTC 529 (SC) (Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another)

6. In 2006 (4) CTC 529 (B.Raman and others Vs. Shusun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd.,) in paragraph 13 the Division Bench has observed as follows:-

"13. A reading of Sections 138 and 142 would make it clear that the Complainant or payee can approach the Court to make a Complaint against drawer only when the drawer fails make the payment, after receipt of statutory notice, within fifteen days. That means, the cause of action would arise only when the drawer, who received statutory notice, fails to comply with the demand, through notice sent by the payee, within fifteen days of the receipt of notice. Only thereafter, the complainant can approach the Court within one month of the date on which the said cause of action arises i.e., the complainant can report to the court about the cause of action that an opportunity has been given to the drawer and, despite that, the drawer has failed to make pa