The date of filing of the complaint is crucial for limitation purposes, and the return of complaints by magistrates for defects is not warranted by law.

The above Criminal Original Petition is directed against the order dated 04.06.2008 passed in Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2007 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.6513 of 2007 on the file of the learned XXXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The respondent herein is the complainant therein. The said case has been taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner herein for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. The cheques issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent were dishonoured on 111. 2004 and the intimation of dishonour was received by the respondent on 111. 2004 and the complainant initially issued a legal notice dated 012. 2004 but it was returned due to incomplete address and therefore the very same notice was once-again issued to the accused on 112. 2004 and the same was received by the accused / petitioner herein on 212. 2004 and for that he had sent a reply and thereafter the complaint was filed on 20.01.2005 but the complaint was returned on 16.02.2006 with an endorsement “Complainant Present in this case there are two notices. Under those circumstances how this complaint is maintainable? Hence returned” and the same was re-presented on 28.06.2006. Subsequently on 21.08.2007 the Sworn Statement of the complainant / respondent herein has been recorded and the documents perused and it was adjourned to 23.08.2008 and on 23.08.2007 on a perusal of the sworn statement and the documents the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out and hence took the complaint on file and ordered issue of summons to the accused / petitioner herein.

4. In the Criminal Revision filed before the Sessions Court, the contention of the petitioner was that two legal notices had been sent and hence two cause of action have arisen and therefore the complaint is not sustainable in law. The further contention was that when the learned Magistrate returned the complaint on 16.02.2006 the same was re-presented by the complainant after a lapse of eighteen months and the learned Magistrate received the complaint and without issuing any notice to the accused took cognizance of the complaint and therefore the complaint is liable to be quashed.

5. The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out that the notice dated 012. 2004 was returned due to incomplete address and hence the very same notice was again sent on 112. 2004 to the correct address and both the notices had been sent within the period of one month from 111. 2004 viz., the date on which the intimation from the petitioner was received by the complainant / respondent herein and therefore the contention that two cause of action have arisen is not sustainable.

6. The second contention put forth by the petitioner was also rejected by basing reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2000 (1) CTC 225 (A. Vinayagam v. Dr. Subash Chandran and another). In the said Division Bench judgment it has been held that the accused cannot claim any benefit on account of representation of complaint returned by Court without specifying time limit for such re-presentation of complaint and it has been further held that the date of filing of the complaint could be relevant and if the complaint had been filed within the period prescribed under the Act and even if the complaint is returned thereafter by the Court without specifying the time limit or for representation the date of filing of the complaint would alone be relevant for the purpose of limitation.

7. Heard the petitioner who is appearing in-person. The petitioner submitted that Section 143 (3) of the Act stipulates that every trial under the Act shall be completed within the period of six months from the date of filing of the com