Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) By the instant misc. petition, accused-petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 09.06.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned revisional Court') affirming the order of cognizance passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar on 02.06.2009. Precisely, the revisional order as well as the order passed by learned trial Court are challenged by the petitioner on the ground that complaint laid by the respondent-complainant was premature in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inasmuch as, the same was filed before expiry of the grace period which was available to the petitioners for making payment of the debt or liability.
(2.) The petition was admitted on 11.01.2013 and thereafter, it was deferred for eight weeks on 26.08.2013 awaiting decision of larger Bench of Supreme Court in case of Yogendra Pratap Singh.
(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties in unison that larger Bench of Supreme Court has decided reference and the judgment aforesaid is reported in 2014 Cr.L.R.(SC) 977. The larger Bench was seized with two questions which are reproduced as under:- (i)Can cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138(c) of the Act aforementioned And, (ii)If answer to question No.1 is in the negative, can the complainant be permitted to present the complaint again notwithstanding the fact that the period of one month stipulated under Section 142(b) for the filing of such a complaint has expired ;