S.K.Gupta, J. - (1.)This revision is directed against the order dated 31/1/2001 formulated by District Judicial Mobile Magistrate. Kathua. whereby proceedings initiated against the accused respondent in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dropped and complaint dismissed. A brief narration of the facts for the purpose of this revision may be noticed.
(2.)The respondent issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 20.000 drawn at Punjab National Bank Branch. Kathua in discharge of his debt liability. The cheque. when presented by the petitioner to the Bank was returned uncashed with an endorsement insufficient funds. The petitioner complainant served a legal notice dated 4/5/2000 upon the respondent in terms of Section 138 of the Act intimating about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding of payment of cheque amount alongwith interest 24% per annum within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The respondent having failed to discharge the liability by making the demanded cheque amount occasioned a cause of action to the petitioner complainant to commence a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The Trial Court. after recording preliminary evidence took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and issued notice to the respondent. In response to the notice, Respondent entered appearance and maintained that the notice is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, as it does not indicate the date nor receipt of the notice and is defective and illegal. The complaint and prayed for dropping the proceeding in an application made to this effect before the Trial Court.
(3.)On the filling of the demurred by the petitioner complainant in opposing by the contention of the accused that mention of the date of the receipt of notice is not mandatory, the Trial Court in placing reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case Trading and Leasing Corporation1 allowed the application, dropped the proceeding and Sid missed the complaint in resultant there of which became subject matter of challenge in this revision.