ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Despite service of notice on the respondents, no one has appeared on their behalf to oppose the appeal, when it is taken up for consideration. 3. The appeal is directed against the final order dated 22nd August, 2006, passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1761 of 2006, dismissing the same and affirming the judgment and order dated 24th July, 2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Kalyan, District Thane, Mumbai. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge had affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ulhas Nagar, issuing process on the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 herein under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. Learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal has drawn our attention to a fact, which apparently has not been properly dealt with either in revision or by the High Court in the criminal writ jurisdiction. Learned Counsel has pointed out that in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1, no mention has been made as to when the notice contemplated under Clause(b) of the proviso to section 138 of the aforesaid Act had been received by the appellant. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint, it has been stated that the memo from the bank indicating that the cheques had been dishonoured on account of in sufficient funds dated 17th February, 2005, had been received, and, thereafter, a notice was sent on 1st March, 2005, calling upon the appellant to make the payment of the dishonoured cheques, worth Rs. 91,325/- drawn on the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Mandvi, Mumbai-3 Branch, within 15 days after the receipt of said notice. However, except for mentioning that the notice had been sent on 1st March, 2005, and that the same had been received by the appellant, no date has been mentioned as to when the same was received by the appellant. The said fact becomes relevant on account of the fact that the period for computing the cause of action and the limitation prescribed under section 142 cannot be determined until and unless the date of receipt of the notice is indicated. Moreover, paragraph 5 of the complaint makes it clear that a letter written to the Postal Department has still not been replied to by the said department. 5. Moreover, paragraph 5 of the complaint makes it clear that a letter written to the Postal Department has still not been replied to by the said department. 5. Although, certain other points have also been raised on behalf of the appellant that the cheques had not been signed by the appellant in his personal capacity but as a Director of Amber Processor and that the notice also did not contain a demand for the amount of the cheques separately, we do not think it necessary to go into the said question, which had been considered and decided by the High Court, since in our view the appeal must succeed on the point which has been raised regarding non mentioning of the date of the receipt of the notice in the complaint. It may not be out of place to mention that the Sessions Court, while dealing with the matter had merely indicated that since the notice had been sent, as would be evident from the receipt given by the courier, presumption must be drawn in terms of section 114(e) of the Evidence Act that the notice had been sent and received in the official course of business. The High Court, unfortunately, has not even dealt with the matter. 6. In such circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, issuing process on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the subsequent orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 24th July, 2006 and the judgment and order of the High Court dated 22nd August, 2006. Appeal allowed.