JUDGMENT By Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant, who has appeared in this case. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 30th June 2005 passed by Sri Kumar Kranti Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in C 1 Case No. 513 of 2002 / T.R. No. 888 of 2005, whereby the accused-petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and upon hearing on the point of sentence, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one and half years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. The said Judgment was challenged by the petitioner in Cr. Appeal No.108 of 2005, which was also considered and rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, by the Judgment dated 17th May 2007. The learned appellate Court below, however, reduced the sentence of the petitioner from simple imprisonment of one and half years to one year and with this modification in the order of sentence, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. It appears from the record that the complainant, Ashok Mandal had filed the complaint petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, which was registered in C1 Case No.513 of 2002. In the said complaint petition, it was stated that the complainant had advanced the amount of Rs.62,000/-to the accused, for which the accused gave a cheque of Rs.62,000/-drawn in favour of the complainant on Federal Bank Limited, Jamshedpur Branch vide Cheque No.188706 dated 26.03.2002. The said cheque was presented in the Bank within time, but the said cheque was bounced. As soon as complainant got the information by the Bank about the dishonour of the aforesaid cheque, he rushed to the accused and informed about the dishonour of the cheque, where upon the accused asked the complainant to again present the cheque before the Bank in the second week of May 2002. Accordingly, the cheque was again presented on 14.05.2002 in the Bank, but again the cheque was dishonoured and subsequently the complainant gave a legal notice to the accused. Accordingly, the cheque was again presented on 14.05.2002 in the Bank, but again the cheque was dishonoured and subsequently the complainant gave a legal notice to the accused. When the amount was not paid to the complainant, in spite of legal notice, the complaint petition was filed in the Court below. 5. The complainant examined three witnesses, including himself during trial and has proved the cheque, the bank return memo and legal notice issued against the accused and on the basis of evidence brought on record , the petitioner-accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned Judgment on a very short point. It has been submitted that according to the complaint petition, when the cheque was bounced for the first time, the accused was informed by the complainant and had demanded his money back. Learned counsel also pointed out that this fact has also been stated in the deposition of Ram Prit Yadav, who was examined in enquiry stage as C.W.2 in the court below. Learned counsel submitted that the cause of action shall start running from the said oral demand. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the orders passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the complaint was filed much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that the cause of action shall start running only after the notice of demand is given in writing. In this connection learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which clearly states that Section 138 of the Act is attracted only when the payee or the holder of the cheque makes a demand of 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. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the oral information given to the accused would not make out a ‘cause of action’ in this case. 8. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the oral information given to the accused would not make out a ‘cause of action’ in this case. 8. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the complainant. The statement is made in the complaint petition only to the effect that as soon the complainant got the information about the dishonour of the cheque, he rushed to the said accused and informed him about the dishonour of the cheque, where upon the accused asked the complainant to again present the cheque in the bank in the second week of May 2002. Similar statement is made in the deposition of the complainant also. It is clear from the plain reading of Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act that Section 138 of the Act is attracted only when the payee or the holder of the cheque makes a demand of said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque. As such, the oral information given to the accused about the bouncing of the cheque cannot constitute the ‘cause of action’ within the meaning of Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 30th June 2005 stpassed by Sri Kumar Kranti Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, Class, Jamshedpur, in C 1 Case No. 513 of 2002 / T.R. No. 888 of 2005, as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by the Judgment dated 17th May 2007 in Cr. Appeal No.108 of 2005, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.