IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the statutory provisions in Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the period of limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Surendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA­I along with Ms. Divya Ojha, learned AGA­I, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 02.12.2021 passed in Complaint Case No. 293 of 2021, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [N.I. Act] in terms of which the petitioner has been summoned, and also the subsequent order dated 21.06.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2022.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has confined his challenge to the aforesaid order only on the question of limitation.

4. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that a cheque drawn by the petitioner, upon being presented by the respondent no. 2, on 18.09.2019, was returned unpaid by the bank, along with a return memo dated 17.12.2019, with a remark “Amount Insufficient.”

5. Upon receipt of the aforesaid return memo, the respondent no. 2 gave a notice dated 04.01.2020 to the petitioner regarding return of the cheque, and the said notice was received by the petitioner on 08.01.2020.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid notice, counsel for the petitioner has sought to contend that the limitation would run from 08.01.2020 i.e. the date when the legal notice was received by the petitioner, and the complaint having been filed on 20.02.2020, was beyond time, and was liable to be rejected.

7. Learned AGA­I submits that the complaint having been filed within one month from the date when the cause of action arose, the same was within the prescribed period of limitation, and, therefore, the orders passed by the courts below cannot be faulted on the question of limitation.

8. In order to examine the challenge to the orders of the courts below, on the ground of limitation, the events leading to filing of the complaint may be summarized as under:

9. The relevant statutory provisions, as contained in Sections 138 and 142, may also be reproduced, for ease of reference:

“Section 138 ­ Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account ­ Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months' from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.

(c) the drawer of such 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 che