SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant application has been preferred by the applicant complainant Vishnu Prasad under Section 378(iv) Cr.P.C. craving leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 14.9.2016 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate N.I. Act Cases No. 1, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 285/2015 whereby, the accused respondent Prakash Soni was acquitted of the charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(2.) I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record.
(3.) The trial Court took notice of the fact that the cheque was dishonoured on 22.8.2014. The complainant forwarded the statutory notice to the respondent on 26.8.2014 which was received on 4.9.2014. As per law, the complaint was required to be filed after expiry of 15 days and within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice but the complainant presented the complaint on 17.9.2014 i.e. before the statutory period of 15 days had expired. Reliance was placed by the trial Court upon Supreme Court judgment in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey and Ors. reported in 2014(3) DCR 417 SC in which it was clearly laid down that a premature complaint filed under section 138 of the N.I. Act is not maintainable. Thus, the view taken by the trial Court is perfectly justified. The trial Court also held that the accused disputed the existence of the legally enforceable debt. The complainant stated that he could prove the liability of the accused by documentary evidence but failed to produce the same on the ground that the diary wherein entries were made, was lost. The trial Court committed no error either in facts or in law while acquitting the respondent from the charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.;