ORDER : This is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the order dated 10-1-2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sawer in Criminal Complaint No. 757/2004. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant at the out set does not wish to press this Misc. Criminal Case. Prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant is allowed. However, looking to the substantial question of law involved in this case, this Court feels it just and proper to decide the pure question of law viz. whether under section 138 (Proviso -c) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) it is necessary for the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque is required to mention the period of 15 days for payment of the cheque amount to the drawer in a statutory notice required to be sent by the payee or holder of the cheque as per provision under section 138 Proviso (b).? To resolve the controversy it would be apt to mention herein section 138 of the Act with amended provisions :- "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account. - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an 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 provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for (a term which may be extended to two years) 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. 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 thirty 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. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 3. In the instant case, non-applicant Sardarsingh filed a criminal complaint against the applicant Dhirajsingh and after service of notice, the applicant Dhirajsingh filed an application before the learned Magistrate raising objection that after dishonour of the cheque, in the demand notice Non-applicant/complainant granted only 7 days time to the accused for payment of the cheque amount whereas according to the provisions under section 138 Proviso (c) the statutory period for payment of the cheque amount is 15 days. Therefore, proper demand notice was not given. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 10-1-2006 has not decided this issue and it appears that the same was not decided because the same prayer of the applicant was dismissed by the trial Court against which, the applicant went up in revision before the learned Sessions Court and the same was dismissed. Therefore, the learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground of repetition and also held that the application was filed with mala fide intention and the learned trial Court imposed cost of Rs. 200/- upon the applicant herein in this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Arihant Fertilizers vs. Rahul Builders, Neemuch and another, 2005(3) MPLJ 444 . 200/- upon the applicant herein in this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Arihant Fertilizers vs. Rahul Builders, Neemuch and another, 2005(3) MPLJ 444 . In this case, the questions were involved namely (1) whether the complainant is required to mention 15 days time for payment of cheque amount while sending the demand notice and (2) whether the complainant could demand more than the cheque amount i.e. Interest and costs. This Court has taken the view that along with the cheque amount, interest and costs could be demanded by the complainant, but he has to give 15 days time to the drawer of the cheque and since only ten days time was given, the notice was not competent and the complaint was liable to be dismissed. This Court again gave thought to the interpretation of section 138 Proviso (c) and is of the opinion that proviso (c) no-where speaks about grant of time of 15 days to the drawer of the cheque for payment of amount demanded. The wordings are clear that upon failure of the drawer of the cheque to make payment of the said amount to the payee or the holder of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice served upon him. As per provision under section 138 Proviso (b) of the Act 15 days time is prescribed for drawer to make payment even after 7 days or 10 days or no time is mentioned in the notice the drawer can make payment of the said amount within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice and if payment was not made, then, the payee or the holder of the cheque can file criminal complaint within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises as per provision under section 142 sub-section (b) of the Act. The Court can take cognizance of the complaint only after arising of the cause of action. 6. The Court can take cognizance of the complaint only after arising of the cause of action. 6. The Supreme Court, in the case of Narsingh Das Tapadia vs. Goverdhanlal, AIR 2000 SC 2946 has held that "filing of complaint before expiry of notice period contemplated by section 138(c) would not be sufficient for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complaint was filed in a premature stage." In this case, the Supreme Court has discussed and distinguished between taking cognizance and filing of complaint and held that "even if the complaint is filed, before arising of cause of action, the same cannot be dismissed and the Court can keep the complaint pending and take cognizance after arising of the cause of action." This ratio decidendi in the case of Narsingh Das Tapadia (supra) is clearly indicating that the complaint can b e filed before arising of the cause of action, but cognizance can be taken only after arising of cause of action meaning thereby mentioning of 15 days time in the notice is not necessary, but the drawer of the cheque can make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. This view is supported by the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P.V.R.S. Mani Kumar vs. Krishna Reddy, 1999 Cri.L.J. 2010 as well as the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Central Bank of India and another vs. M/s Saxons Farms and others, 1999 Cri.L.J. 4571. In this case the arguments were advanced on behalf of the accused before the High Court that in the demand notice, as per provision under section 138 Proviso (b) the intention of filing criminal complaint as per provision under section 142 of the Act was not mentioned, therefore, the notice did not fulfil the requirement and the complaint was not maintainable. The High Court accepted the arguments and quashed the complaint against which the complainant went up before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has held that "in view of the wording mentioned in the notice, the complaint has expressed his intention to take legal action against the accused and he need not mention in clear words what action he was going to take and in addition to filing of criminal complaint under the Act complainant can also expose the accused by prosecuting him under the Indian Penal Code. This interpretation of the Supreme Court is clearly indicating that in the notice under section 138 Proviso (b) and (c) the complainant is required to demand the amount and express his intention for prosecution of the accused upon non-payment of amount. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the view taken by this Court in the case of Arihant Fertilizers Ltd. Indore vs. Rahul Builders, 2000(3) MPLJ 444 that in the notice complainant is duty bound to mention 15 days time for payment of amount demanded and if less time is mentioned in the notice, the complaint is not maintainable, has not laid down the correct law. Therefore, the same is hereby overruled. 8. As the applicant does not wish to press this Misc. Criminal Case, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed.