Pasayat, J. -- Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint alleging infraction of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "the Act") was not maintainable. Therefore, the proceedings were quashed; allowing the petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code").

Background facts filtering out unnecessary details are as under:

The complaint was filed by the appellant alleging that in the year 199'5 respondent 1 had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,15,053.72 representing balance amount payable to the appellant for supply of goods to a partnership firm of which the respondents are partners. It was indicated that the total amount payable was Rs. 49,21,482.72 as against which the accused persons had paid Rs. 44,06,429, leaving balance of Rs. 5,15,053.72. A cheque [drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ladwa Branch (Account No. 954)] was issued for the same amount on 27.1.1995. The cheque was signed by respondent 1 Yashpal Singh, for the firm and respondent 2 Nirpal Singh, was a partner of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Sat Guru Rice Traders, New Delhi. The cheque was dishonoured due to inadequacy of funds in the account. Intimation was given on 6.2.1995. Notice was issued by the appellant demanding payment by lawyer's notice dated 17.2.1995. The amount was not paid. The respondents requested the appellant for some time to make the payment. On the request of the respondents, the cheque was again presented on 6.7.1995 and it was again dishonoured due to inadequacy of funds. Intimation in this regard was sent to the appellant on 10.7.1995. Again, lawyer's notice was sent on 24.7.1995. Reply was sent by the respondents on 10.8.1995 refuting the allegations contained in the legal notice. The complaint was lodged on 28.8.1995. Charges were framed.

The respondent filed an application for discharge which was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 29.1.2002. The order was challenged before the High Court which by the impugned judgment held that the requirements of section 142 of the Act were not met.

In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court was not right in entertaining the petition under section 482 of the Code. The High Court lost sight of the fact that the application was filed by the respondents long after the charges were framed. The High Court has erroneously placed reliance on this Court's decision in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar [( 1998) 6 SCC 514]. On the contrary, the decision in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd. [(2001) 6 SCC 463] is applicable. The period of limitation has to be reckoned from 10.8.1995 i.e. the date on which the respondent-accused persons replied to the legal notice dated 24.7.1995. As the complaint was filed on 28.8.1995 the same was well within time. It was submitted that the respondent-accused persons categorically stated in their reply dated 10.8.1995 that the first notice had not been served on them.

Learned counsel for the respondent-accused persons on the other hand, submitted that the High Court had rightly taken the view that the requirements of section 142 were not met. It was pointed out that the effect of the first notice was lost in view of the fact that the second notice was given. The High Court has rightly applied the ratio· in Sadanandan Bhadran case (supra). It is not in dispute that there was issuance and receipt of the lawyer's notices on both the occasions. In fact, the acknowledgement of service of first notice has been filed by the appellant complaint himself and at all stages the case proceeded on the footing that the first notice had been issued and served. The High Court has categorically noted that the first notice had b