The court emphasized the importance of issuing a notice within the specified time frame and cautioned against taking a hyper-technical view when the substance of the notice is evident.

( 1 ) THE above revision petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 2/11/2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. VIII. Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision Nos. 190/2002, 201/2002,209/2002, 215/2002, 216/2002, 217/2002 and 255/2002, arising out of Complaint Case Nos. 55/2001, 54/2001, 56/2001,57/2001,58/2001, 53/2001 and 59/200 1, respectively filed by respondent No. 2 against the present revisionists.

( 2 ) THE brief facts, giving rise to the present revisions, is that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the revisionists under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before the A. C. J. M. Court No. 3. Bulandshahr. The Magistrate, after recording the statement of complainant and the witnesses, passed order summoning the accused. The accused-revisionists appeared before the Magistrate and filed objection against the summoning order dated 14/5/2001. The Magistrate allowed the said objection and set aside the summoning order vide his order dated 30/4/2002. The respondent No. 2, complainant, filed the above revisions before the Sessions Court. Bulandshahr and all the revisions were allowed, setting aside the order dated 30/4/2002, directing the revisionists to appear before the Court of Magistrate for further proceedings.

( 3 ) THE present revisions have been filed on the ground that lower revisional court has committed error of law in. holding that notices under section 138 of the Act were valid notice. The provisions of Section 138 of the Act lay down that cause of action arises when the payee makes a demand for payment of the said amount of money, by giving a notice, in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him, from the Bank regarding dishonour of the cheque. In the notice under question the date of dishonour of cheque is 12/11/2000 and its information is 14/11/2000. Therefore, a notice of demand of dishonour of a cheque ought to have been given within 15 days from the date of such dishonour of the cheque. In the present case, the notice was given on 21/12/2000, which is beyond the period of 15 days from 14/11/2000. Thus the notice was invalid and complaint cannot proceed. The learned Sessions Court has taken an erroneous view against the established position of law.

( 4 ) THE respondent No. 2 filed a short counter affidavit on the ground firstly, that the Magistrate has no power to recall the summoning order in view of the pronouncement of Full Bench case of Ranjeet Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others. It was further deposed that according to the provisions of Section 138 of the Act only a notice has to be sent to the holder of cheque for making a demand for the payment of amount of money and in the present case the demand notice is said to be sent to the accused persons within the said period. It is nowhere disputed that cheques were issued by the accused and notice should not be construed in a narrow technical way without examining the substance of the matter. The date was mentioned incorrectly in the notice and no prejudice has been caused to the accused.

( 5 ) THE rejoinder affidavit was filed by Sri Vinod Kumar on the ground that in the notice the manipulation has been made by making correction but the said correction was not made in the notice sent to accused-revisionists. In the notice received by the accused. revisionists, the date of presentation of cheque is given as 12/11/2000 and the date of receiving information of dishonour of the cheques has been given as 14/11/2000. The copy of the original notice was filed alongwith the application for recalling of the summoning order. The accused was within their rights in filing the objection against the summoning order as laid down in the case of K. C. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Ajai Mehra and another v. Durgesh Babu and others. The application for recall of summoning order is therefore maintainable in the eye of law.