Crl.R.C.No.451 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 13.04.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.R.C.No.451 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.No.3459 of 2020

N.Shanmugavel

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.M/s.Mocking Bird International,

A Partnership Firm, represented by its partner,

K.Dhavanamanidevi,

W/o.Kanagaraj,

No.8, Eswaramoorthy Nagar,

7^th Street, Tirupur-641 604.

2.K.Dhavanmanidevi

3.A.Kanagaraj

..Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397 read with

401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 21.02.2020 passed

in Crl.M.P.No.5670 of 2019 in unnumbered C.C.No... of 2019 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.R.Bharathkumar

For Respondents

:

No appearance

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.451 of 2020

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is filed being aggrieved by the dismissal of

the condone delay petition filed under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments

Act by the revision petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupur to

condone the delay of 18 days in preferring his complaint under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.

The cheque for Rs.50 lakhs dated 14.06.2019 alleged to have been

issued by the respondents to discharge the debt he owes to the complainant.

According to the complainant the said cheque was presented for collection for

the first time on 17.06.2019 which got returned and at the request of the

accused, it was represented subsequently on 28.06.2019 and again on

02.07.2019. On all the three occasions the cheque dishounoured. Hence, for the

first time statutory notice dated 06.07.2019 was issued to the accused, calling

upon them to pay the cheque amount within a period of 15 days, failing which,

they will face the consequence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The said statutory

notice has been received by the accused on 09.07.2019 and they have given a

reply through their Lawyer dated 22.07.2019, denying the liability. The

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.451 of 2020

complainant has given a rejoinder reply notice through his lawyer dated

29.07.2019. The said rejoinder was received by the accused on 31.07.2019.

3.

Taking the date of receipt of the rejoinder notice as the date to

reckon limitation complaint has been filed with the condone delay petition

saying that there is 18 days delay in preferring the complaint and the same has

to be condoned. The respondent has filed a counter to the condone delay

petition pointing out that, the cheque dated 14.06.2019 was presented thrice

and after the 3^rd return, statutory notice was issued for the first time on

06.07.2019 as per Section 138 of N.I.Act. The said notice was received by the

accused on 09.07.2019. Therefore, on expiry of 15^th day, cause of action to file

complaint commences i.e., the limitation commences from 24.07.2019. As per

Section 142 of N.I.Act, the complaint ought to have been filed within 30 days

from the date of cause action. However, the complaint was presented only on

04.10.2019. The number of days delayed not properly calculated and the reason

for condone the delay has also not been satisfactorily explained.

4.

The Trial Court, after considering the provisions of law as stated in

Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act, besides the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.451 of 2020

Court, has held that the cause of action to institute the complaint under Section

138 of N.I.Act arise after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the

statutory notice by the accused.

5.

For return of cheque, there can be only one statutory notice. The

subsequent notice or subsequent return of cheque will not save the running of

limitation. The limitation has to be reckoned on the receipt of the