The main legal point established is the importance of adhering to the computation of time principles and satisfying the court for any delay in filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

ORDER :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. By filing the application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner herein who was the Complainant before the learned trial Court, seeks leave to Appeal against the impugned Judgment dated 30.11.2016, of the learned Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Private Complaint Case No. 03 of 2015 (Ankit Sarda v. Subash Agarwal), by which, the Respondent herein was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, “N.I. Act”).

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner advanced the contention that the Petitioner is a businessman trading in Stock Exchange and had business dealings with the Respondent herein (the accused before the learned trial Court). In October, 2014, the Respondent issued three Cheques to the Petitioner of which two Cheques were of AXIS Bank, Gangtok Branch and one of the Canara Bank, Gangtok Branch, which were marked as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The Cheques when presented by the Petitioner for encashment before the HDFC Bank, Gangtok Branch was dishonoured with the remark “insufficient funds” with regard to Exhibits 1 and 2 and “account closed” for Exhibit 3. The Petitioner consequently issued Legal Notice to the Respondent on 11.11.2014, demanding repayment of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only, covered by Exhibits 1 to 3. The Respondent failed to comply with the Legal Notice of the Petitioner upon which the Petitioner filed Private Complaint Case supra on 31.12.2014. It is strenuously urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the said Complaint was well within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 138(c) and Section 142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act. That, on completion of trial before the learned trial Court, the impugned Judgment was pronounced on 30.11.2016, wrongly acquitting the Respondent by overlooking the vital materials on record apart from misreading the provisions of law and erroneously calculating the period of limitation, hence the Petitioner be allowed to file his Appeal.

3. Vehemently resisting the stance of the Petitioner’s Counsel, learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the concerned Cheques Exhibits 1 to 3 were all issued on 10.10.2014. On 07.11.2014 all the Cheques were dishonoured on the grounds as mentioned by the Petitioner. Notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be issued on 11.11.2014. In this context, reliance was placed on Exhibit 7 which is the Notice issued to the Respondent. On the same day it was despatched by registered AD to the Respondent i.e. 11.11.2014 and the Notice came to be delivered on 12.11.2014. Admittedly no documents have been filed by either party to establish receipt of the Notice by the Respondent on 12.11.2014, however on this count the attention of this Court was drawn by learned Counsel for the Respondent to the cross-examination of the Petitioner. It was urged that in his cross-examination before the learned trial Court the Petitioner has unequivocally admitted that the Notice marked Exhibit 7 is dated 11.11.2014 and was delivered to the accused on 12.11.2014. That, on such admission of the Petitioner nothing further remains to be contested on the fact of the date of delivery of Notice. That, Section 138 of the N.I. Act requires that the payee or the holder of the cheque, as the case may be, is to make a demand for the payment of the required amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days from the receipt of information by him, from the Bank, regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. The drawer of such cheque is to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. It is admitted that the Notice, Exhibit 7 was issued within thirty days of the Cheques being dishonoured. When the accused fails to make payment within fifteen days of the recei