2025:CGHC:50606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 174 of 2020 Jairam Kaiwartya Son Of Bhikhari Kaiwartya Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Chantipali, Ps And Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Parmeshwar Traders Proprietors - Parmeshwar, Son Of Rajendra Prasad Verma, Aged 29 Years, Resident Of Lawan Road, Balodabazar, Ps And Tahsil Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 10.10.2025 1. Present CRMP filed by the petition under Section 482 of CRPC 1973 against the order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Second Additional Session Judge, Baloda Bazar, in CRR- 44 of 2019, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is accused in a complaint case- 103 of 2018, filed by the respondent before the learned CJM, Baloda Bazar for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NIA’). He would submit that the respondent alleged in the compliant filed under Section 138 of the Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.10.15 11:00:48 +0530 Crmp 174 of 2020 2 NIA that for discharge of his liability, the petitioner gave a cheque dated 07.05.2018, bearing No.561711, of Rs.1,80,000/-, drawn on the State Bank of India, Branch-Main Road, Kasdol, and when the complainant deposited the said cheque in his bank for clearance, it was dishonored on the ground of insufficient funds. The said cheque was dishonored on 23.07.2018, and on the same day, communication was received by the complainant about it. As per the proviso of (b) of Section 138 of the NIA, the complainant was required to serve notice in writing to the accused within 30 days from the date of receipt of information by him from the bank. However, the legal demand notice has been served upon the accused on 23.08.2018, which is issued on 31st day from the date of receipt of information about dishonour of the cheque. Provisions of Section 138 of the NIA are mandatory, and there is no condonation of any delay after 30 days in sending the notice to the accused. Issuance of legal demand notice after the prescribed period i.e. on the 31st day, would defeat the prosecution the compliant case. 3. After appearing before the learned trial court, petitioner had challenged the order of registration of complaint case by filing criminal revision before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar which has been dismissed on 17.10.2019 against which the present petition has been filed. He would further submit that issuance of legal demand notice on 23.08.2018 is apparently barred by the statutory period, and therefore, compliant of the complainant is not maintainable, yet the revision has been dismissed. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside, and Crmp 174 of 2020 3 the complaint may be dismissed on this ground alone. He would rely upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kamlesh Kumar Vs.Bihar and another, (2014) 2 SCC 424, and the order of coordinate Bench of this court in CRMP-644 of 2013, decided on 05.12.2014 (M/s Golden Graphics Vs Ashok Agrawal). 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order passed by the learned trial court as well as the revisional court and would submit that the 30th day from the date of receipt of communication from the bank with regard to the dishonor of the cheque was declared as holiday on the occasion of Ed festival and therefore, on the very next day notice has been served, which cannot be said to be beyond the limitation period and the learned trial court has correctly passed the order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the legal demand notice was issued on the 31st day after receipt of communication from the bank with respect to dishonor of the cheque, is based on the document annexed with the petition. However, from perusal of para 11 of the order passed by the learned revisional court it transpires that the 30th day from the date of receipt of communication of dishonor of the cheque i.e. 22.08.2018 is declared as holiday for Ed festival and therefore, the service of legal demand notice was affected on Crmp 174 of 2020 4 23.08.2018. True, it is, 23.08.2018 is the 31st day from the date of receipt of communication from the Bank about dishonour of cheque, however the 30th day i.e. 22.08.2018 is declared as holiday for Ed festival, the date of service of notice on 23.8.2018 cannot be said to be the 31st day for the purpose of issuance of legal demand notice. 7. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act provides that if the last day of the prescribed period, the office or court was found to be closed, then, the proceeding taken on the next day afterwards, on which day the court, or office is opened, can be considered to be the last day. Section 10 is relevant to be reproduced here below: “Section 10. (1) Where, by any 1[Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open” 8. It is clear from the above provision that the notice was served on 23.08.2018 and the day of 22.08.2018 was closed on the occasion of Ed festival. Therefore, the notice was served on 23.08.2018, well within time, which was served upon the petitioner herein, intimating him about dishonor of the cheque. Crmp 174 of 2020 5 9. The Judgments cited by learned counsel by the petitioner in the earlier paragraphs are distinguishable with the facts of the present case, and therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner from the cited judgments. 10. This court does not find any perversity or illegality in the order impugned. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. Interim Relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. 11. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned trial Court for information and necessary proceedings. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma