9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the evidence of PW1 Gopal Krishnan and PW2 Muralidharan and has passed the impugned order holding that notice before filing the complaint under section 138 was not issued within stipulated period of fifteen days. It also appears that the court while quashing the criminal complaint on 27-11-2000, which was filed in 1994, did not call for the record of the proceedings of the Trial Court for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, on the ground that in respect of a liability on a promissory note, a cheque was issued in favour of the complainant on 12-1-1994 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. When the cheque was presented in the bank, it was returned on 13-1-1994 with an endorsement payment stopped by drawer . Hence, appellant issued notice on 29-1-1994 which was received by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand for the payment of money by giving a notice to the drawer of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid . So fifteen days are to be counted from the receipt of information regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. In the present case, it is the say of the complainant that the cheque was presented for enc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ralidharan and has passed the impugned order holding that notice before filing the complaint under section 138 was not issued within stipulated period of fifteen days. It also appears that the court while quashing the criminal complaint on 27-11-2000, which was filed in 1994, did not call for the record of the proceedings of the Trial Court for its verification. 7. In this view of the matter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
