JUDGMENT : 1. Heard finally. 2. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the complaint filed against the petitioner by respondent No. 1. 3. It is not disputed that one complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 on which cognizance was taken against both the persons by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This order taking cognizance has been assailed by the petitioner by this petition. 4. While highlighting the facts mentioned in para 6 of the complaint, Shri Pandey has submitted that as averred, notice was not served on 20-4-2004. It is also not mentioned in the complaint as to on what date cause of action was arose. It is also submitted by Shri Pandey that vide para 5 of the complaint the cheques were dishonoured on 6-3-2004 thereafter, notice was given after expiry of fifteen days. He has further submitted that time period is to be counted after the service of the first notice and if it is counted as such, the complaint is time barred. 5. Shri Mishra has submitted that notice issued on 23-3-2004 was returned with a note that addressee has gone out of station on 5-4-2004. Then, he gave second notice on 20-4-2004. That was received on 22-4-2004 with a note that the notice has been refused by the addressee. Thus, the limitation should start after this point of time. 6. For appreciating the contentions of the rival parties the text of paras 5 and 6 of the complaint is required to be perused which goes as under :- 7. It is apparent that the cheque was returned/dishonoured on 6th March, 2004. Thereafter, the notice was given on 23rd March, 2004 i.e. after 17 days. As provided by section 138 proviso (b) of the Act as amended by Section 7 of the Act No. 55 of 2002, it was within prescribed time of 30 days. The amended provision goes as under :- 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account - .................. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless - (a)........... The amended provision goes as under :- 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account - .................. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless - (a)........... (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).......... Explanation-............. (Emphasis supplied) This amended provision has been made applicable from 6th of February, 2003. Before this, a period of 15 days was prescribed. The cheque was returned after this date i.e. on 6th March, 2004, hence, in view of this new provision this notice was given in time. 8. During the course of arguments, Shri Pandey has drawn the attention of the Court on a judgment delivered by another Bench of this Court in the case of Balkrishna Maheshwari vs. Meena @ Chaman Jain, 2006(4) M.P.H.T. 148 . The facts of that case were that the respondent had received the information on 8th January, 2003 about dishonouring of the cheque and a notice was given on 5th February, 2003 i.e. after a period of 15 days. As has been discussed hereinabove, that before 6th February, 2003 the period of 15 days was applicable, but thereafter by way of amendment a period of 30 days has been made applicable. In view of this, in that case that notice was given after the statutory period. In view of the amended provision, the ratio of this judgment cannot fruitfully be utilized in favour of the petitioner here in this case. 9. After return of the cheque, issuance of notice, informing the drawer of the cheque about the return of the cheque, is required. Giving notice is not only sufficient, but service of the same is also required. Because after receiving the notice, the drawer is required to pay the amount within a period of 15 days. For counting this time of 15 days, date of service is material. It appears from para 6 of the complaint, that the first notice issued on 23-3-2004 was returned unserved, with a note that the addressee has gone out of station. Because after receiving the notice, the drawer is required to pay the amount within a period of 15 days. For counting this time of 15 days, date of service is material. It appears from para 6 of the complaint, that the first notice issued on 23-3-2004 was returned unserved, with a note that the addressee has gone out of station. Once the first notice was returned unserved, it was incumbent upon the complainant to issue the second notice, to ensure the service. It is also mentioned in the same para that when second notice was issued on 20th April, 2004, it was refused by the petitioner. It is settled law that refusal to accept the notice is deemed a proper service. In view of this, counting of 15 days time, starts from 20th April, 2004 the date of notice or 22nd April, 2004 on which notice was refused as contended by Shri Mishra and thereafter, when within 15 days, amount was not paid, again one month's time is available to the complainant for filing the complaint, as provided by section 142(b). Counting this total time of 45 days, after any of the aforementioned dates, filing of the complaint on 11th May, 2004 appears to be very much in time. In view of this, if the date of service or refusal of notice has not been mentioned in complaint, it does not harm the complainant in this case. 10. In view of all, as discussed hereinabove, the petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.