1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16/10/2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 494 of 2015, M/s. Preeti Garments through its Proprietor Shri Ram Das vs State of U.P. and one another, whereby allowing the revision, the order dated 16/04/2015 of the learned Magistrate has been set-aside and the matter has been remanded with the direction to decide the complaint in accordance with law. Vide order dated 16/04/2015, the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Aligarh had dismissed the complaint Case No. 1140 of 2014, M/s. Preeti Garments through its Proprietor Shri Ram Das vs Surendra Banjara under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (to be referred from here onwards in short as ''NI Act').

2. A Complaint Case No. 1140 of 2014 M/s Preeti Garments through its proprietor Sri Ram Das vs. Surendra Banjara was filed u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was mentioned in the complaint that cheque nos. 338060, 338061 and 338062 dated 15/06/2014, 10/07/2014 and 05/08/2014 respectively were dishonoured which led the complainant to present the complaint because on these cheques being presented by the complainant, the bank issued three Memorandums dated 23/08/2014 stating therein that payment of these cheques was not being made because of insufficient amount being in the account of the drawer. Thereafter the opposite party-accused was sent a legal notice dated 01/10/2014 along with receipt of registry dated 01/10/2014 and, thereafter, the complaint was presented in the Court on 24/10/2014 against the opposite party-accused. The learned Court of Magistrate has recorded in its order that the following terms and conditions were necessary to be complied with for filing a complaint: (a) the cheque is presented before the bank within 6 months from the date of its issuance; (b) the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque; (c) the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. The learned Court below has mentioned in its order that the above provision makes it evident that within 30 days of the cheque being dishonoured, it is necessary to issue notice to the drawer of the cheque to make the payment, which is a mandatory provision, but from the perusal of the record in the present case, it transpires that the information of the cheque being dishonoured dated 23/08/2014 is the date of issuance of bank memo, while notice by the complainant to the opposite party-accused was given on 01/10/2014, i.e. after the expiry of 30 days period from the date of dishonour of cheque. In the case at hand the complainant has mentioned 20/09/2014 to be the date of information received about dishonour of cheque, while there is no such evidence presented by him on file, which would reflect that he had received information regarding the cheques being dishonoured on 20/09/2014, because the memo issued by the bank in this regard is of 23/08/2014, which has been filed from the side of the complainant. Thus, relying upon the position of law laid down in Kamlesh Kumar V. State of Bihar and another, 2014 (2) SCC 424, in which the Supreme Court had held a complaint to be not maintainable in case demand notice was not issued within the time limit, the complaint was dismissed on 16.04.2015 under Section 203 Cr. P.C.

3. Against the said order dated 16.04.2015, Criminal Revision No. 494 of 2015 was preferred by complainant M/s Preeti Garments through its proprietor Sri Ram Das Vs. Surendra Banjara. The learned revisional Court has given the details of the facts of this case that the complainant/revisionist was doing business of ready-made garments, in connection of which an amount of Rs. 99,00,000/- was outstan