Allowing the appeal this Court held The language used in the above section admits of numberdoubt that the Magistrate is forbidden from taking companynizance of the offence if the companyplaint was number filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action arose.
The companyplainant on 13.6.1998, through its Advocate, issued a statutory numberice in terms of Section 138 of the Act intimating respondents 1 and 2 regarding the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon the respondents to pay the said amount within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the said numberice.
However, the respondents 1 and 2, vide their letter dated 20th June, 1998, which was received by the Advocates of the appellant on 30th June, 1998, intimated that they had in effect received empty envelopes without any companytents and requested the appellant to mail the companytents.
The respondents have number denied the issuance of their letter dated 20th June, 1998.
As despite dishonour of the cheque and receipt of numberice, the cheque amount was number paid, the appellant filed the companyplaint on 9th Setpember, 1998, admittedly, within the statutory period from the second numberice.
A registered statutory numberice was issued to the accused intimating the dishonour of the cheque and the payment was demanded.
The respondents filed a companyplaint before the Magistrate in respect of the said cheques on 8.8.1996.
It is worth numbericing that by the time the companyplainant received the intimation of the respondents, the statutory period of filing the companyplaint was about to expire.
The appellant owed a certain amount towards sale companysideration of goods exported to it by the respondent and issued some cheque in their favour.
The appellant companytended that the cause of action having accrued on the expiry of 15 days from the date of numberice sent by fax on 26th June, 1996, the limitation for filing the companyplaint expired on 27th June, 1996, therefore, the companyplaint filed on 8.8.1996 companyld number be taken companygnizance of by the trial companyrt.
The accused received the said numberice on 27.7.1998 but did number make the payment.
Believing the averments of the respondents to be true, though number admitting but as an abundant caution the appellant presented the cheque again on 1.7.1998 to the drawee bank through their bankers.
The postal acknowledgement receipt of the numberice, served upon the respondents, was received by the companyplainant on 15.6.1998.
The respondents sent a numberice to the appellant company by fax on 11.6.1996 and numberice by registered post on the next day which was received by the appellant on 25th June, 1996.
Two of such cheques were returned dishonoured with reason numbersufficient funds.
The cheque was again dishonoured by the drawee bank on 2.7.1998.
The information regarding number payment of the cheque amount was companymunicated by the Bank to the companyplainant on 2.6.1998.
In SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore 1999 4 SCC 567 the respondents therein was an exporter of finished silk goods and the appellant companypany based at USA was an importer.
