Petitioner acquitted due to invalid service of legal notice in Section 138 case. Judgment set aside.

The High Court acquitted the petitioner in a case involving a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found that the legal notice regarding the cheque dishonor was not validly served, rendering the complaint premature. The court set aside the lower courts' judgments, discharged the petitioner from liability, and allowed the criminal revision petition. The complainant was given the option to file a fresh complaint. The court appreciated the amicus curiae's assistance and directed the payment of her legal remuneration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Service of legal notice regarding cheque dishonor.
3. Calculation of the timeline for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner was initially convicted by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and six months, along with a compensation payment of Rs. 1,50,000 to the complainant. This conviction was upheld by the appellate court, which reduced the sentence to one year while maintaining the compensation amount. The petitioner challenged this decision in the present criminal revision petition.

2. Service of Legal Notice Regarding Cheque Dishonor:
The complainant issued a legal notice on 29.02.2008 after the cheque was dishonored multiple times due to insufficient funds. However, the courts below presumed that the notice was received by the petitioner by 02.03.2008, based on the assumption that the petitioner resided in the same district. The High Court found this presumption to be perverse, noting that there was no evidence to suggest that the notice was actually served on the petitioner. The court emphasized that the date of service of the notice is crucial for calculating the timeline for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Calculation of the Timeline for Filing a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Subodh S. Salaskar vs. Jayprakash M. Sah and Another and Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey and Another, which clarified that the presumption of service of notice can only be drawn after 30 days from the date of issuance. The court held that the cause of action for filing a complaint arises 15 days after the service of the notice. In this case, the complaint was filed on 18.03.2008, which was premature as the deemed service of the notice would be on 30.03.2008, making the complaint not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, acquitted the petitioner, and discharged him from the liability of his bail bond. The court also noted that the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint in accordance with the law. The criminal revision petition was allowed, and pending interlocutory applications were dismissed. The court appreciated the assistance provided by the amicus curiae and directed the payment of her legal remuneration.

Additional Notes:
The court directed the lower court records to be sent back and communicated the judgment to the concerned authorities.

---