- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the prosecution u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") and Sec. 420 of the Penal Code, on the sole ground that the complaint was filed two days after the expiry of limitation. In the present case, notice was sent u/s. 138 of the Act on 4.1.1997, which was served on the accused on 10.1.1997, giving him 15 days' time for making payment, which expired on 25.1.1997. Cause of action to file the complaint accrued on 26.1.1997, which day has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation, as required u/s.12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 . Therefore, the limitation would be counted from 27.1.1997 and the complaint was filed on 26.2.1997, within a period of one month from that date, as such, the same was filed well within time. We find that the point is concluded by a judgement of this Court in Saketh India Ltd. V/s. India Securities Ltd., in which case taking into consideration the provisions of Sec. 12(1) of the Limitation Act, it was laid down that the day on which cause of action had accrued has to be excluded for reckoning the period of limitation for filing a complaint u/s. 138 of the Act. In the present case, after excluding the day when cause of action accrued, the complaint was filed well within time; as such the High Court was not justified in holding that there was two days' delay in filing the complaint. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing prosecution of the respondents.
(3.) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. Now the trial court shall proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.;