The amendments to the Negotiable Instrument Act clarified the period of limitation for filing complaints under Section 138, ensuring that complaints filed within the prescribed period are not considered time-barred.

ORDER

1. This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed assailing the order dated 01.07.2005 passed in CR.R. No. 160/2005 (M/S. Virmani Tyres Vs. Kirpal Singh Pal) whereby order dated 19.04.2005 passed by JMFC, Jabalpur dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act as time barred has been set aside and learned Magistrate was directed to deal the complaint treating it as well within the period of limitation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.02.2005 respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 alleging that non-applicant Kirpal Singh Pal had purchased truck tyres. He had made part payment and for rest of the amount on 10.12.2004 cheque No.269688 of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was issued in his favour. When on 29.04.2004, he presented the cheque in his Punjab National Bank BranchNagpur Road Jabalpur for encashment, same was returned dishonored on the ground of insufficient fund in the account of the non-applicant/accused. On 11.01.2005 respondent/complainant sent a legal notice through his Advocate which was received by the applicant/accused on 12.01.2005. Despite receipt of notice, complainant did not make the payment of the cheque amount. Hence, complaint was preferred on 24.02.2005.

3. Learned JMFC by order dated 17.04.2005 dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is time barred.

4. The order was challenged by respondent/complainant by filing criminal revision. Learned Session Judge by order dated 01.07.2005 allowed the revision on the ground that complaint has been filed within a period of 30 days after the service of notice on the drawer of the cheque holding that learned JMFC has committed error in reckoning the period of month following the date on which the period of 30 days after service of notice expired.

5. The revisional order passed by learned Sessions Judge is assailed on the ground that impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without reckoning the period of 30 days in a proper way.

6. In this case complaint was filed on 24.02.2005 in the Court of JMFC Smt Shashi Singh but she returned the same on 01.03.2005 on the ground that her Court was not having territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. Same day i.e. 01.03.2005 complaint so returned was presented in the Court of Smt. Surekha Mishra JMFC, who also dismissed the complaint on the ground that it has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

7. In the instant case, cheque of Rs. 50,000/- was issued on 10.12.2004. The notice of demand was served on applicant-accused on 12.01.2005 within the specified period of 15 days ending on 26.01.2005.

8. As per the amendment brought into force from 16.02.2003 by Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 and it was made clear in Section 142 of the Act that if cause of action arises 30 days after the service of notice on the drawer the cognizance may be taken after the prescribed period of limitation if sufficient cause is assigned while delay in filing the complaint.

9. As per the amendment, which came into force on 16.02.2003 reckoning of the period of one month following the date on which the period of 30 days after service of notice expired, even if it was taken as filed on 01.03.2005 was well within the period of limitation. Thus, learned Magistrate was not justified in treating the complaint as time barred. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge was well within his power to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC as complaint was well within the period of limitation. As such, no error is visible in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Thus, no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness is found in the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge. Hence, this revision being devoid of merit is dismissed.

10. The trial Court record along with a copy of this order be sent down to learned JMF