Complaint not barred by period to limitation.

1. The petitioners are the accused.

2. The petitioners herein filed an application before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable and to discharge the accused. Learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 17.11.1997, dismissed the said application, Hence, the Revision.

3. The complaint against the petitioners herein was filed by the complainant, under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the following allegations.

The 1st accused represented by the 2nd accused received a deposit of Rs.50,00,000 as intercorporate deposit repayable in 90 days together with interest at 18%. To secure the repayment, the accused executed a promissory note for Rs.50,75,000 In spite of repeated demands, the accused paid only a sum of Rs.20,00,000 towards Principal amount. The accused were granted time till 30.11.1996 to pay principal amount and interest. On 30.11.1996, the accused handed over a cheque for Rs.38,87,565 drawn on Bharat overseas Bank Limited, George Town,Chennai. The complainant presented the cheque for payment through his banker M/s.Oriental Bank of Commerce, which was returned unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Immediately by speed post, the accused were issued notice under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring them to pay the sum of Rs.38,87,565 together with interest and costs of the notice. The complainant had knowledge of service of the notice on the first accused on 9.1.1997 and on the second accused on 26.12.1996. The accused failed to comply with the notice and hence, the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised only two grounds to contend that the complaint is not maintainable. Firstly, he submitted that the notice has been issued claiming higher amount than the cheque amount, and therefore, the notice is invalid and as there is no proper notice, proceedings under Sec.138 of the Act will not He, The other contention raised by him is that the complaint has not been filed within the period of limitation and therefore, it is not maintainable in law.

5. I will now take up the first contention viz., the invalidity of the notice issued. The notice is dated 23.12.1996. It sets out the fact of depositing of Rs.50,00,000 with the accused. It also mentions the fact of the deposit becoming payable on the expiry of 90 days. If further refers to the part payment of Rs.20,00,000 alone and about the balance of Rs.38,87,565 towards principal and interest at the rate of 18% The notice also mentioned about the time granted to the accused till 30.11.1996 for payment and of the handing over of the cheque by the accused for Rs.38,87,565, drawn on Bharat overseas Bank Limited, George Town,Chennai. The notice further specifies that the said cheque was presented for collection at M/s.Oriental Bank of Commerce, Adyar Branch, and the same returned on 14.12.1996 with a remark in-suffi-ciency of funds. Finally by way of notice, the complainant has called upon the accused to pay the complaint the sum of Rs.38,87,565, together with interest at the rate of 18% charge of the notice being Rs.2,500. Learned counsel for the petitioners would therefore contend that inasmuch as a claim for further interest at 18% and for payment of Rs,2,500 towards charges of notice are added, this notice becomes invalid and defective.

6. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as a tenable one. The provisions of an enactment cannot be construed in such a manner as to make it meaningless or ineffective. The spirit of the enactment has to be taken into account. The purpose for which the enactment came to be passed cannot be lost sight of. It is with a view to bring credit-ability in commercial transactions, this Act has been introduced. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is to be accepted, then it may lead to artificial situation. Sec.138 of the Act especially proviso (b) specifies that a demand