Judgment : The accused in C.C.No.25l of 1992 on the file of Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No.251 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, has filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C., praying to call for the records in the said case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offence under Sec.138, Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The accused was cahsier-cum-clerk, Canara Bank, Nagercoil. He was transferred to Canara Bank. Theppakulam Branch, Trichy. At that time, he requested the complainant to deposit some amount in Theppakulam Branch. The complainant gave Rs.50,000 for investing it in the name of his son at Theppakulam Branch, Trichy. But the accused did not invest the amount. On insistence of the complainant; the accused issued cheque dated 7. 1992 for Rs.50,000 and promised the complainant to dear of the amount on the date on which the cheque is to be presented. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment and it was returned with an endorsement “insufficiency of money”. The complaisant issued notice on 18. 1992. The accused received it, but had not sent any reply. Hence, the complaint. 3. Mr.G.Ethirajulu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that full par-ticulars are not given in the complaint that the date of issue of the cheque and the date of dishonour of the cheque were not given in the complaint and in view of the above, the complaint is liable to be quashed. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel. In para.5 of the complaint, it is stated that the accused issued a cheque for Rs.50,000 dated 7. 1992 and promised the complainant to clear off the amount on the date on which the cheque is to be presented in the bank. The date of issue of the cheque is not given. In para.6 of the complaint, it is stated that the petitioner presented the cheque before Canara Bank, Nagercoil for collection and he was informed that there was no money to honour the cheque. Then in para.7 it is stated that the complainant sent a notice to the accused through his advocate on 18. 1992. It is true that date of issue of cheque and date of presentation of the cheque would come onlyat the time of trial. Then in para.7 it is stated that the complainant sent a notice to the accused through his advocate on 18. 1992. It is true that date of issue of cheque and date of presentation of the cheque would come onlyat the time of trial. If the date of presentation of the cheque is beyond the specified period from the date of issue of cheque, then the offence would not be made out. But the date of issue of the cheque would come only at the time of trial. We cannot be presume that it must be beyond six months from the date of presentation of the cheque in the bank. Taking that view of the matter, I am unable to sustain the submission that because the date of issue of cheque and presentation of the cheque in the bank for collection were not given in the complaint, it should be quashed at the threshold. When those particulars are missing in the complaint, only at the time of trial, it will come out. 5. The other submission made by the learned counsel is that in the sworn statement, the complainant had stated that the accused had borrowed Rs.50,000 from him; whereas in the complaint, it is stated that for investment purpose, he got it but did not make the investment and there is a contradiction. Whether this contradiction would be sufficient to throw out the case, can be considered only at the time of trial. Because of this inconsistency, it cannot be thrown out at the threshold. 6. In view of the above, this petition does not deserve admission and shall stand dismissed.