A complainant's failure to send a statutory notice within the prescribed timeframe as outlined in S.138 does not invalidate a complaint if proper payment receipts are demonstrated.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. XVIII, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C. No. 3436 of 1996, dated 20-3-1998, acquitting the accused for the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The complainant has come forward with the allegation that it is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its Principal Office at Mumbai and a Branch Office amongst other places in India including at Chennai. The complainant has stated that the accused on 9-11-1995 came forward with a written request for discounting a Bill of exchange for a face value of Rs. 15,00,000/- for covering a transaction with M/s. Nalanda Synthetics Limited, Hyderabad.

3. A complaint was filed by the complainant through PW 1, who has been duly authorised by a power of attorney document, Ex. P1. Ex. P2 is the letter of request given by the accused to the complainant for discounting a bill of exchange for a value of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The bill is marked as Ex. P3. The delivery chalan is marked as Ex. P4. The bill of exchange is Ex. P5. The accused also issued a cheque dated 7-2-1996 for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Somajinguda, Hyderabad, which is marked as Ex. P6. Thereafter, the complainant was about to present the above said cheque on 7-2-2006, the accused requested to defer for some time. On 16-3-1996 a part payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made by the accused. When the complainant deposited the cheque, Ex. P5 on 3-5-1996 in their Bank the same was returned on the ground of "insufficient funds". The Bank Memo is Ex. P7 and Debit Advice is Ex. P8. Thereafter, he has sent a registered legal notice, Ex. P 9, demanding the accused to settle the amount due to dishonour of cheque as contemplated under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Ex. P10 to 12 are the acknowledgments for the receipt of the legal notice, Ex. P9 received by the accused. The accused sent a reply to the complainant stating that they will settle the amount in installments. Ex. P13 is that letter. But till the filing of the complainant the accused has not settled the amount.

4. The complainant in order to prove his case examined PWs. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. P1 to P14. PW 2 is the Manager of the Canara Bank. Ex. P 14 is the authorisation given to PW. 2 to give evidence for the complainant. PW 3 is the Manager of Vijaya Bank, Somajinguda, Hyderabad.

5. When the accused was questioned under S.313, CrPC. in respect of the incriminating materials made appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the complainant, the accused denied his complicity to the crime and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

6. The accused also examined D.W. 1 who was working as General Manager of the accused company and he has also implicated in this case as A2. It is stated by D.W. 1 that the Rs. 15,00,000./- bill discounting facility was arranged by the complainant company and Rs. 15,00,000/- cheque was given as security. It is also stated by D.W. 1 that on 16-3-1996 Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid as part payment to the complainant company. Ex. D.1 is the letter sent by the complainant company. In the Advocate Notice sent by the complainant company, it is stated that an amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- was only due.

7. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the complainant and on the perusal of the records has come to the conclusion that the complainant has not proved his case against the accused and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal the complainant has come forward with this appeal.

8. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused by giving the following reasons:
(