Premature complaints dismissed for not complying with Section 138 of N.I. Act

The court held that the complaints were premature as they were filed before the expiry of the 15-day period mandated by Clause (c) of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was clarified that the cause of action arises only after the 15-day period, making any complaint filed before that period premature and not maintainable. Consequently, the court allowed the revisional applications, quashed the criminal proceedings, discharged the accused from their bail bonds, and directed the concerned Judicial Magistrate to take necessary action.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the four petition of complaints were premature.
2. Interpretation of Clause (c) of Section 138 and Clause (b) of Section 142 of the N.I. Act.
3. Validity of cognizance taken by the Magistrate on premature complaints.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the four petition of complaints were premature.
The accused issued cheques to the opposite party which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Statutory notices u/s 138(b) of the N.I. Act were served on 01-12-1997, and complaints were filed on 15-12-1997. The primary question was whether these complaints were premature as they were filed before the expiry of the 15-day period mandated by Clause (c) of Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Clause (c) of Section 138 and Clause (b) of Section 142 of the N.I. Act.
Clause (c) of Section 138 mandates that the drawer must be given 15 days from the receipt of the notice to make the payment. Clause (b) of Section 142 stipulates that a complaint must be made within one month of the cause of action arising, which is after the 15-day period. The court held that the cause of action arises only after the expiry of the 15-day period, and any complaint filed before this period is premature and not maintainable.

Issue 3: Validity of cognizance taken by the Magistrate on premature complaints.
The court referred to several precedents, including *Sil Import, USA v. Exim Aides, Silk Exporter, Bangalore* and *Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani and Anr.*, which clarified that the offence is completed only after the failure to pay within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. The court concluded that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the complaints before the expiry of the statutory period, rendering the complaints premature and invalid.

Conclusion:
The revisional applications were allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed. The court directed that the accused be discharged from their bail bonds and a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate for necessary action.

---