N. L. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order passed by the Magistrate affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in revision refusing to summon the accused person in a case under Sec. 420 I. P. C. read with S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as amended by Amendment Act No. 66 of 1988. ( 2 ) THE dispute arises out of a business transaction. A post-dated cheque for 25-11-89 was issued by the accused/opp-party on 15/10/1989 which was to be presented before the Bank on 25/11/1989. The said cheque was presented for encashment on 19-2-90 before the Bank. It was returned by the Bank with letter dated 27-2-90 with slip "refer to drawer as there was insufficient amount in the account of the accused/opp-party. The cheque was dishonoured and not encashed. Being aggrieved by such dishonouring of the cheque, the criminal complaint aforementioned was filed. The complainant before filing the Criminal Complaint sent a notice dated 8-3-90 through his Counsel Sri Maheshwari, Advocate for making payment of the amount of cheque. ( 3 ) THE present petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. is thus filed by the complainant. The specific finding about the nature of case as of a civil nature is supported by the admitted fact stated in the complaint that there had been business transaction between the parties. Further the fact that the post-dated cheque in question was dated 25-11-89 issued on 15-10-89. The cheque was not presented on 25-11-89 or on a near date. It was presented on 19-2-90, when it was found that full amount was not there in the account of accused. Since the cheque was presented after about 7 weeks of the due date for encashment of cheque, it cannot be conclusively said that on 25-11-89 or near about dates there was no money in the bank account. Further it also cannot be assumed that on the date of issuing of the cheque there was no intention of accused to pay at all. In view of the admitted fact of having business transactions between the parties, the learned Sessions Judge was correct in saying that it was a case of civil nature and no offence under Sec. 420 I. P. C. was made out against the accused /opp-party. In view of the admitted fact of having business transactions between the parties, the learned Sessions Judge was correct in saying that it was a case of civil nature and no offence under Sec. 420 I. P. C. was made out against the accused /opp-party. ( 4 ) THE other argument which has been addressed by the counsel for the petitioner is that the case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was fully made out and the Courts below have not considered the said aspect of the matter and illegally refused to summon the accused for the said offence. The provisions of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (1881) are produced as under to appreciate the argument: "138: Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. The provisions of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (1881) are produced as under to appreciate the argument: "138: Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account :-Where any chequedrawn by a person on account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the Bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that Bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other person of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless: - (A) the cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier: (B) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, 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;and (C) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. " ( 5 ) THERE is one provision about the taking of the cognizance of offices under the said Act provided in Sec. 142. " ( 5 ) THERE is one provision about the taking of the cognizance of offices under the said Act provided in Sec. 142. Provision of Sec. 142 of the said Act is quoted as under: "142: Cognizance of offences (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): (A) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque: (B) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the Proviso to section 138: (C) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under Sec. 138. ( 6 ) ON analysis of the aforesaid two sections for making out a case u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the ingredients are (1) the payee of the cheque in case of non-payment of the cheque is required to send notice within fifteen days in writing to the drawer of the cheque from the date of receipt of information about non-payment demanding the amount of cheque, (ii) the drawer fails to make payment of the amount within fifteen days from the date of receipts of the notice, there would be a case u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act provided the action is taken for cognizance of the offence as provided u/s. 142 of the said Act. ( 7 ) IN the present case, information about non-payment of the cheque was received by the applicant on 27-2-90. It is said that a notice to the accused was sent by registered post on 8-3-90. There is no evidence or acknowledgment receipt of the post office that the notice dated 8-3-90 was ever served personally on the accused/opp-party. Thus, it was necessary to prima facie show that even after 15 days of receipt of the notice as contemplated u/s. 138 (b) of the Act, the accused /opp-party failed to pay the amount. In order to fasten a criminal liability on a person, the requirement of law has to be fully complied with. Thus, it was necessary to prima facie show that even after 15 days of receipt of the notice as contemplated u/s. 138 (b) of the Act, the accused /opp-party failed to pay the amount. In order to fasten a criminal liability on a person, the requirement of law has to be fully complied with. In the present case it has not been shown that notice of demand as required u/s. 138 (b) of the Act was served on the opposite party. The postal acknowledgement Annexure 2-E shows that it was delivered to one Guddu not to the opposite party. The said acknowledgment do not show that it was addressed in the name of accused/opp-party. In absence of service of notice u/s. 138 (b) of Act, no prosecution and cognizance of offence is permitted. ( 8 ) THE petitioner has filed a true copy of the complaint dated 22-3-90 which was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8-6-90. The petitioner after dismissal in the complaint on 8-6-90 again filed fresh complaint on 13-6-90 before the Judicial Magistrate which too was dismissed u/s. 203 Cr PC on 23-7-90. The petitioner appears to leave filed the revision before Sessions Judge against the order dated 8-6-90 without disclosing that fresh complaint filed on 13-6-90 was also dismissed u/s. 203 Cr. P. C. on 23-7-90. The petitioner nowhere in the affidavit disclosed that original complaint dated 22-3-90 was dismissed on 8-6-90 and second complaint case was filed on 13-6-90 which was also dismissed on 23-7-90. The proceedings u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. are akin to the proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner in case files a petition u/s. 482, it is expected that true and correct facts have been stated in the affidavit. Any attempt to conceal material facts which may mislead the court is always fatal for such petitions. The perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge shows that the complaint case was dismissed on 8-6-90 by the Chief Judicial Magistrates The complainant/applicant again filed a fresh complaint on 13-6-90 which too was dismissed on 23-7-90 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I. The revision was filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 8-6-90 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. No revision against the dismissal of the complaint case u/s. 203 Cr. P. C. on 23-7-90 appears to have been filed. No revision against the dismissal of the complaint case u/s. 203 Cr. P. C. on 23-7-90 appears to have been filed. Thus, the said order dated 23-7-90 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, I, became final. The petitioner came to the High Court by concealing material facts. In such circumstances, no extraordinary powers are to be invoked by this Court. ( 9 ) IN absence of any proof that the notice u/s. 138 (c) of the Act was served on the accused/opposite party, there was no justification in prosecuting the accused/opposite party for offence u/s. 138 (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the petitioner admitted having business relations with opposite party and provisions of Sec. 138 (c) of the Act are not complied with and the order dated 23-7-90 dismissing the second complaint also u/s. 203 Cr. P. C. which became final. I do not find any circumstance to interfere under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. ( 10 ) THE petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.