Company notice under Section 138 can satisfy statutory demand requirements for directors, and early filing alone need not make a complaint premature.

In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involving a company, service of the demand notice on the company satisfies the statutory notice requirement for directors in charge of its business. The Court also noted that a complaint filed before full maturity of the cause of action is not automatically liable to quashing merely because it was presented earlier; it may await maturity or be returned for later presentation. On these principles, the complaint was treated as not premature and the quashing challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was premature and liable to be quashed, where demand notice was served on the company and the complaint was filed after expiry of fifteen days from service on the company.

Analysis: The complaint was challenged as premature on the footing that the demand notice to the directors was served later. The Court held that where the cheque was issued on behalf of a company, service of notice on the company satisfied the statutory requirement, and such service was sufficient for the directors who were in charge of the company. It further relied on the principle that, even if a complaint is presented before the cause of action fully matures, mere earlier presentation does not necessarily render it liable to dismissal, as the complaint may await maturity or be returned for presentation later.

Conclusion: The complaint was not premature and the petition for quashing failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 involving a company, service of the demand notice on the company is sufficient compliance for the directors in charge of its business, and mere earlier presentation of the complaint does not by itself render the complaint liable to be quashed as premature.

---