The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of establishing relevant dates for maintaining a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the strict construction of penal provisions.

Hon’ble Surendra Vikrarm Singh Rathore, J. : We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.09.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1, Sultanpur and also the order dated 06.03.2006 whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and also the order of revisional court dated 18.09.2002 in Criminal Revision No.306 of 2006 whereby the revision was also dismissed.

3. Facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petition in brief are that the complainant was dealing in the business of building material and he had supplied building material to the petitioner who was the Director Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Waste Land and Rural Development, Sultanpur. He issued two cheques of Rs.45,000/- each drawn at Canara Bank, Sultanpur. The said cheques were deposited by the petitioner in his account in Bank of Baroda, Civil Line Branch, Sultanpur but the same were returned with the report of insufficiency of fund. Thereafter notice dated 01.11.2004 was sent by registered post but no payment was made. So on 01.12.2004 the complaint was filed and alongwith the complaint the original cheque, memo sent by the Bank and copy of notice was also filed. Complainant got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the such evidence, the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred criminal revision and he also failed to get favour from the revisional court.

4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the revision was contested on the ground that when the fact of dishonouring of the cheque came to his notice then he issued a separate cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- relating to a different account at Lucknow and the same was encashed by the complainant. This amount of Rs.1,25,000/- included Rs.90,000/- as the amount of the earlier cheque and Rs.30,000/- an advance for further supply. However, this fact was denied by the complainant who has stated that the said cheque was issued with reference to another liability of the petitioner and had no connection with the instant transaction. It was further submitted that the petitioner had deposited a government cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- in his account but the same could not be encahsed because of some technical mistake on the part of the Bank. Due to which the cheque was dishonoured and there was no intention of the petitioner, not to make payment of the cheque amount.

5. In the instant petition it is submitted that in a proceeding under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, the dates when the cheque was issued, the date when the cheque was presented before the Bank when memo was received from the Bank, when notice was issued, when the notice was served and the date of filing of the complaint are very material dates, but none of these dates have been mentioned in this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that he had filed the relevant documents and after perusal of the same the impugned order was passed. Hence, there is no illegality.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the pronouncement of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of N.K. Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and Others reported in [2007 (58) ACC 290]. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para 10 as under :

“In order to bring application of Section 138 the complaint must show: 1. That cheque was issued, 2. The same was presented; 3. It was dishonoured on presentation; 4. A notice in terms of the provisions was served on the person sought to be made liable. 5. Despite service of notice, neither any payment was made nor other obligations, if any, were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice.”

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the pronouncement of Hon’ble the