ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the judgment of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore, in CA.No.19/2013 is confirmed with the judgment of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur in CC.No.80 of 2012.

2. The respondent as a complainant filed a complaint under Sections 138, 141, 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with 200 of Cr.P.C. The case of the complainant / respondent is that the petitioner / accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from him to meet his urgent needs and promised to discharge the said amount within two months. The petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.183911 dated 17.11.2011 drawn in favour of Indian Overseas Bank, Periyankuppam. The respondent presented the cheque for collection through Corporation Bank on 02.03.2012. The cheque was returned as “Funds Insufficient” on 04.03.2012. The respondent received a return memo on 04.03.2012. The petitioner issued the cheque only to evade payment and to cheat the respondent. The respondent issued legal notice to the petitioner on 31.03.2012 through RPAD and courier services. The petitioner received the notice through courier service on 02.04.2012 and the notice sent through RPAD was returned as “Addressee Left”, on 07.04.2012. The notice sent to the office address was returned as “closed”. Even after the receipt of the notice, the petitioner neither paid the amount nor replied within 15 days of receipt of the notice. Therefore this complaint.

3. After the petitioner entered appearance before the Trial Court, he was questioned with regard to the substance of accusation against him. Petitioner denied the accusation and demanded trial. During the trial, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined on the side of the respondent. Exs.P.1 to P.11 had been marked. On the side of the petitioner, he was examined as DW.1 and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with payment of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent. Against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore at Tirupattur in C.A.No.19 of 2013. The learned Sessions Judge after re-evaluating and re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence found that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court and it did not require any interference and dismissed the said appeal. Against the said judgment, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

4. The point for consideration is that whether the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge in C.A. No.19 of 2013 suffers from any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness necessiating interference by this Court?

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced one important legal submission with regard to filing of the complaint before the Trial Court before the accrual of cause of action. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cheque concerned in this case was dated 17.11.2011. The return memo of the dishonour of the cheque was dated 04.03.2012. The legal notice was dated 31.03.2012. As per Ex.P.5 Acknowledgement, the notice was received by the petitioner on 02.04.2012. The petitioner was given 15 days time for paying the cheque amount as per Ex.P.3 notice. Notice was received on 02.04.2012. The date of receipt of notice i.e., 2.4.2012 has to be excluded for reckoning 15 days time. 15 days time expires only on 17.04.2012. The complaint ought to have been filed only on 18.04.2012. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the filing of the complaint on 17.04.2012 is not maintainable. In support of his argument, he placed the judgment reported in (2014) 3 MWN (Cr.) DCC 65 (SC) (Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. Savitri Pandey and another).

6. The next submission made by the lea