JUDGMENT: These three appeals arise out of the calendar cases in respect of three different checks issued by the same accused to the same complainant which are dishonoured on the ground of “insufficiency of funds”. 2. As the parties are one and the same and the cause of action is one and the same and the reason for acquittal is also one and the same, I am constrained to pass a common order in all the three appeals. 3. A cheque relating to Criminal Appeal No.86 of 1996 issued by the accused is dated 23.4.1992 for a sum of Rs.10,000. A cheque relating to the Criminal Appeal No.87 of 1996 is dated 1.5.1992 for sum of Rs.10,000 and cheque relating to C.A.No.88 of 1996, Dated 23.4.1992 for Rs.7,000 have also been issued by the same accused. It is suffice for me to state for the purpose of this case that all the three cheques were deposited in Syndicate Bank, Udumulpet and all of them were returned on the ground of “Insufficiency of funds”. Though the cheques had been returned on different dates, consolidated notice within the mandatory period prescribed under the Act was issued on 6.5.1992 to the accused enabling him to make good the loss. However, the notice was not received by the accused and the same was returned unserved on 26.5.1992 and hence the complaint was filed before they said Court on 8.6.1992. After recording the evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused solely on the ground that the complaint has been filed within 15 days from the date of return of the cheques. In other words, according to the learned Magistrates, the 15th date lapses only on 9.6.1992 and hence the complaint ought to have been filed on 9.6.1992 or thereafter. Since the complaint had been filed one-day prior, it vitiate the procedure contemplated under the Act and hence acquitted the accused. Against the said judgment, the present appeals have been filed. 4. I do not think that I need to go deeply into the matter since the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the identical issue and has held that filing a complaint within the statutory period i.e. 15 days from the date on which the accused received the notice is not a violation under the provisions of the Act and consequently it would not vitiate the trial. The principle has been enshrined in a decision reported in Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan DasPartani, (2000)4 C.T.C. 55 wherein it has been held as follows: “Mere presentation of the complaint in the Court cannot be held to mean that its cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate. If the complaint is found to beprematured, it can await maturity or be returned to the complainant for filing later, and its mere presentation at an earlier date need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed or confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed.” Therefore, in view of the above principal laid down by the Supreme Court, iron of the view that though the filing of the complaint in the present case may be on 14th and 15th day as the case may be it would not vitiate the trial and hence I set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitting the accused on the sole ground and remand a matter for fresh disposal on the basis of the evidence already recorded. The respective parties are at liberty to raise other contentions before the said Magistrate. Accordingly, these three appeals are allowed.