- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3374 CRL.A No. 100361 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100361 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SHRISHAIL, S/O. MUGAPPA MARABAD, AGE. 50 YEARS, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580112. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETAN T.LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: ABDULAZEEZ, S/O. RAJESAB DODAMANI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KAVALAGERI VILLAGE, POST. M. NAGAR, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580112. …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ACQUITTAL ORDER DATED 30.06.2023 PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.74/2022 AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST HIM. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:03 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3374 CRL.A No. 100361 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant challenges the judgment dated 30.06.2023 passed in C.C. No. 74/2022 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Dharwad, whereby the Trial Court acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”). The acquittal was based on the ground that no cause of action had arisen for the complainant to prosecute the accused, as the complaint was filed before the expiry of the statutory 15-day period within which the accused was required to make payment of the cheque from the date of receipt of the notice. 2. The complainant presented the cheque on 13.01.2022, which was dishonored for insufficient funds on 14.01.2022. A statutory notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was issued on 21.01.2022 and was returned with the endorsement “unclaimed” on 02.02.2022. 3. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the NI Act states that a complaint must be made within one month from the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. In this case, the statutory notice was returned as “unclaimed” on 02.02.2022, meaning the complaint should have been filed within 30 days thereafter. However, the complaint was filed on 09.02.2022, before the expiry of the 15-day statutory period prescribed under Section 138(c) of the NI Act. Consequently, the complaint was premature, and the Trial Court - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3374 CRL.A No. 100361 of 2023 rightly passed the impugned order. I find no illegality in the Trial Court’s judgment. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1711], wherein it was held that in cases of premature complaints, the remedy is to file a fresh complaint by satisfying the Court of sufficient cause. 5. In view of the above, the appellant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action, subject to satisfying the Court of sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 6. The time spent in prosecuting the complaint and the appeal before this Court shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68