ORDER N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2002 passed by VIIIth ASJ, Indore in Cr.R. No. 171/2000 whereby the order dated 23.12.1999 passed by JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No. 594/99 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as an "Act") and under Section 420 of IPC was dismissed, was maintained, the present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that on 15.12.1997 a complaint was filed by the petitioner alleging that petitioner is executive of M/s. Gujrat Ambuja Proteins Limited, a Public Limited Company, having its registered office at Ahmedabad and branch at Indore. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 is listed company under the provisions of Companies Act and the respondent No. 1 is Managing Director of respondent No. 2 Company. It was alleged that in discharge of the liability of respondent No. 2 Company respondent No. 1 issued six cheques of Rs. 28,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Bombay in favour of the petitioner and sent the same by letter dated 29.7.1996. It was alleged that the said cheques were presented by the petitioners with its banker Punjab National Bank, Indore for collection but upon presentation all the cheques were returned to the petitioner with a memorandum dated 17.9.1996 bearing remark 'insufficient funds'. It was alleged that consequently the petitioner sent a legal notice through advocate on 24.10.1996 which was received by the respondent on 28.10.1996. It was alleged that the said notice was also sent by fax to the respondent No. 2 company. It was alleged that in-spite of notice of demand the amount was not paid, hence the respondent has committed an offence which is punishable under Section 138 of the Act and under Section 420 of IPC. It was alleged that after taking cognizance the respondents be convicted. After recording of evidence laid by the petitioner under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Trial Court and notices were issued. After appearance the respondents filed an application for dismissal of the complaint. After hearing the parties the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the same is barred by time, against which a revision petition was filed which was also-dismissed, hence this petition. 3. After appearance the respondents filed an application for dismissal of the complaint. After hearing the parties the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the same is barred by time, against which a revision petition was filed which was also-dismissed, hence this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by time. It is submitted that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the complaint. It is also submitted that in the petition filed by the respondents for dismissal of complaint it is no where stated that the notice was received by the respondents by fax. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that the fax message was received by the respondent No. 2, then too, since the petitioner was not having the acknowledgement duly signed by the respondents, therefore, the learned Courts below committed error in holding the complaint barred by time from the date of receipt of the fax message. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside and the case be sent back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to convict the respondents in accordance with law. 4. From perusal of the record it is evident that the cheques of Rs. 28,00,000/- were dishonoured on 13.10.1997 and notices were sent on 24.10.1997 by fax and also by registered post. Registered notice which were sent were duly served on 28.10.1997 while the complaint was filed on 15.12.1997.13.12.1997 and 14.12.1997 were holiday. After receipt of notices dated 24.10.1997 which was received on 28.10.1997 the petitioner was required to wait for 15 days which is the time given under the statute for payment of cheque money. If the amount has not been paid within 15 days, then only cause of action accrues for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Act. The only question which is involved in the present case is whether the cause of action accrued after completion of 15 days from 24.10.1997. If the amount has not been paid within 15 days, then only cause of action accrues for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Act. The only question which is involved in the present case is whether the cause of action accrued after completion of 15 days from 24.10.1997. Learned Courts below placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M/s. Sil Import. USA v. Ms. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Banglore 79 (1999) DLT 414 (SC) : I (2000) BC 668 (SC) : III (1999) CCR 15 (SC) : AIR 1999 SC 1609 , wherein the notice to drawer of cheque was issued by fax as well as by/registered post, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that date of receipt of fax cannot be ignored for the purposes of accrual of cause of action on ground that sender of notice must know when notice is received by drawer. 5. In the opinion of this Court the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below cannot be allowed to sustain on the following grounds: (i) Firstly, after taking cognizance the learned Court below issued notices to the respondents, thereafter the application filed by the respondent for dismissing the complaint could not have been entertained by the learned trial Court in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal 2004(4) MPLJ (SC) 1, wherein it is held that the only remedy available to challenge issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code is by way of petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., Sessions Court committed error in quashing the criminal complaint. (ii) Secondly, so far as the law laid down in the matter of M/s. Sil Import, USA (supra) is concerned, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the date of receipt of fax can not be ignored is concerned, in this case the facts of the aforesaid case are altogether different. In this case notice was sent by fax on 11.6.1997 and notice was sent by registered post On 12.6.1997, thus the registered notice was not sent simultaneously. While in the present case notices were sent by registered post and also by fax on 24.10.1997 and the acknowledgement of notice sent by registered post shown that the respondents were served with the notice on 28.10.1997. While in the present case notices were sent by registered post and also by fax on 24.10.1997 and the acknowledgement of notice sent by registered post shown that the respondents were served with the notice on 28.10.1997. In the application dated 11.1.1999 wherein the prayer was to dismiss the complaint also it was not stated by the respondents that the notice sent to the respondent No. 2 company was received by the respondent No. 2 company on 24.10.1997 itself. (iii) Thirdly, respondent No. 1 was also impleaded as accused and fax was sent by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 company only, therefore, it cannot be said that notice sent by the fax was also served on respondent No. 1 because the fax number on which the notice was sent was of the respondent No. 2 Company. In the facts and circumstances of the case if the complaint is filed within the statutory period after computing the limitation from the date of receipt of notice sent by registered post, then it cannot be said that the complaint filed by the petitioner is barred by time. In view of this, this Court is of the view that the learned Courts below committed error in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner, after placing reliance on the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. On the contrary the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is not at all applicable in the present case as in that case receipt of notice by Fax was admitted while in the application filed by the respondents nothing has been mentioned about the receipt of the notice by Fax. In view of this the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 17.9.2002 passed by VIIIth ASJ, Indore in Cr.R. No. 171/2000 and also the order dated 23.12.1999 passed by JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No. 594/99 stands set aside with a direction to the learned Court below to proceed with the case and decide the same on merits after securing the presence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at the earliest within a period of six months, as the criminal case is of the year 1999. 6. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.