KRIPAL SINGH Vs. BALVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu. Learned Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance of the complaint and issued the process to the accused petitioner herein. The accused petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings initiated against him. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 17-9-2003 dismissed his application. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, the petitioner accused filed revision petition before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. The learned Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 31-1- 2004 dismissed the revision petition, hence the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. for seeking setting aside of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that in the complaint filed by the respondent, the respondent has not disclosed the date on which the demand notice was served upon the accused petitioner. Since the cause of , action for filing the complaint could arise to the complainant if the amount of the cheque dishonoured was not paid within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, the complaint in the absence of the disclosure of date of service of the notice is not maintainable.

(3.) Mr. Wazir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is imperative upon the complainant to mention the date of service of the notice upon the accused for maintaining the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He argues that if the date is not mentioned then no cause of action accrues to the complainant to file the complaint. According to Mr. Wazir as the date of service of the notice has not been mentioned, therefore, the complaint as well orders passed thereon deserve to be quashed.