2026:JHHC:17182 1 Acq. Appeal (C) No. 19 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (C) No. 19 of 2024 Amod Prasad Nirala, aged about 45 years, son of Bundi Lal Sharma, resident of 2D/2, Nirmal Nagar, P.O. Sakchi, Bhuiyadih, Hume Pipe, P.S. Sitaramdera, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Raj Kumar Son of Yogendra Prasad Sharma, resident of Tube Colony, Karandih, Near Shyama Prasad School, P.O. Tata Nagar, P.S. Parsudih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum ...... Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashishtha, Spl.P.P For the Respondent no.2 : Mrs. Leena Shakti, Advocate 15.06.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur while observing that the complaint petition has been filed prematurely, has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 11.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 2922 of 2015 whereby the Respondent No.2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 3,05,000/- out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5000/- was directed to be appropriated to the State and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 months. 3. The list of dates suggests as under: ➢ Demand Notice was sent on 28.10.2015 but there is no 2026:JHHC:17182 2 Acq. Appeal (C) No. 19 of 2024 evidence as to when the demand notice was delivered to the addressee. ➢ Presumption of delivery of notice would have been taken with the lapse of one months i.e., on 28.11.2025 ➢ The cause of action would have arisen after 15 days therefrom i.e., after 13.12.2015 ➢ Complaint has been filed on 09.12.2015 3. Thus, the complaint petition was filed prematurely 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh Vrs. Savitri Pandey & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713 wherein the Apex Court has formulated two questions, which read as under: i. Can cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138(c) of the Act aforementioned? And, ii. If answer to question no.1 is in the negative, can the complainant be permitted to present the complaint again notwithstanding the fact that the period of one month stipulated under Section 142(b) for the filing of such a complaint has expired? The said questions have been answered in para 41 of the judgment, which reads as under: 41. Section 142 of the NI Act prescribes the mode and so also the time within which a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act can be filed. A complaint made under Section 138 by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has to be in writing and needs to be made within one month from the date on which the cause of action has arisen under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. The period of one month under Section 142(b) begins from the date on which the cause of action has arisen under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. However, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the prescribed period of one month, a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period. Now, 2026:JHHC:17182 3 Acq. Appeal (C) No. 19 of 2024 since our answer to question (i) is in the negative, we observe that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque may file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of decision in the criminal case and, in that event, delay in filing the complaint will be treated as having been condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the NI Act. This direction shall be deemed to be applicable to all such pending cases where the complaint does not proceed further in view of our answer to question (i). As we have already held that a complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is not maintainable, the complainant cannot be permitted to present the very same complaint at any later stage. His remedy is only to file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed within the time prescribed under Section 142(b), his recourse is to seek the benefit of the proviso. satisfying the Court of sufficient cause. Question (ii) is answered accordingly. 5. Referring to the above proviso, it has been submitted that the appellant may be permitted to withdraw the present acquittal appeal with a liberty to approach the Court below under proviso of Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act. 6. Considering the legal provision and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra), the present acquittal appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the appellant to invoke the proviso of Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, if the facts and circumstances of the case so permit. 7. The present acquittal appeal stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated 15th June 2026 A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Uploaded ____/____/2026