BAIL SLIP

Appellant/Accused namely Saraswathy, W/o.Senguttuvan

(Sole Accused STC.No.860/08 on the file of the Judicial

Maistrate NO.II, Salem) was directed to be released on bail as

per order of this Court dated 27.09.2011 in M.P.No.1/11 in

Crl.R.C.No.1263/11 and further directed to the petitioner shall

not be required to surrender before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Salem as per order dated 15.7.2011 passed in

C.A.No.30 of 10 pending disposal of the main Revision vide order

dated 27.09.2011 in M.P.2 of 2011 in Crl R.C.No.1263/11.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.02.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1263 OF 2011

Saraswathy,

W/o.Senguttuvan,

316/1, No.2, Stanmoore Compound,

Ganapathy,

Coimbatore-6.

... Petitioner/Accused

/versus/

M/s.Steel Line Traders,

Partner, K.Kalaiselvam,

S/o.Kandasamy,

No.233/1, Srinagar Colony,

Omalur Main Road,

Narasodhipatti,

Salem-5.

... Respondent

Prayer:- Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section

397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the

order passed in C.A.No.30 of 2010 order dated 15.07.2011 on the

file of the Learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem,

confirming the judgment and order passed in STC.No.860/2008 by

order dated 20.01.2010 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Salem.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Respondent : No appearance

O R D E R

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner.

2. The Revision Petitioner arising out of the concurrent

finding of the Courts below under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

3. The complaint is barred by limitation is the short ground

canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner. According to the learned counsel the statutory

notice intimating the return of cheque without realisation was

sent by the defacto complainant on 10.01.2008, it reached the

destination of the accused on 12.01.2008.

The Postal

Authorities has delivered the intimation to the addressee.

Since, the addressee failed to receive the postal cover, the

cover was returned back to the complainant on 24.01.2008. The

complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

reckoning 24.01.2008 as the date of commencement of cause of

action been filed before the Magistrate on 03.03.2008.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

the postal cover returned to the complainant clearly reveals

that the notice has reached the addressee on 12.01.2008. So, the

cause of action should be reckoned from 12.01.2008. One month

time to file a complaint will commenced from 27.01.2008 the 15^th

day after the intimation left to the accused. Since the

complaint was filed only on 03.03.2008 the complaint is barred

by limitation.

5. Though, this submission made by the learned counsel for

the petitioner on the face is very impressive. Close reading of

proviso(c) to Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable of the

Instrument Act connotes otherwise. More particularly proviso

(c) to Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act which determines

the commencement of cause of action, clearly indicates that it

shall be, when 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 cheque, within

fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

6. In this case notice not received but returned

undelivered. Section 142(b) of Negotiable Instrument Act reads

as below:

(b) such complaint is made within one month of

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the date on which the cause of action arises

under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138:

7. Harmonious reading of proviso (c) to Section 138 and

Section 142(b) clearly indicates that