Judgment : The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.118 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parchur, Prakasam District. The second respondent lodged a private complaint alleging that the petitioners issued cheques, that the cheques bounced when presented and that the petitioners are guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The second respondent has been doing business in Cotton. The petitioners have been in the habit of purchasing cotton bales from the second respondent on credit basis. It would appear that the second petitioner on behalf of the first petitioner company issued cheques. 3. It is the case of the second respondent that when cheques bearing Nos.321874 dated 13.11.2006, 321871 dated 10.11.2006, cheque bearing No.321872 dated 18.11.2006 and cheque bearing No.321873 dated 25.11.2006 for Rs.3,00,000/-each and cheque bearing No.321875 dated 03.12.2006 for Rs.2,38,000/-were presented to the bank for collection, the cheques bounced. The first petitioner is a company. The second petitioner is the joint managing director. Petitioners 3 to 5 are joint directors. The second respondent filed criminal complainant against all the respondents on the ground that all of them were liable for prosecution and punishment for issuance of cheques, which stood bounced. 4. It is the basic contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the private complaint filed by the second respondent is barred by limitation. It may be noticed that the statutory notice was issued by the second respondent on 13.01.2007 by referring to 5 cheques but contending that three cheques out of the five cheques issued by the second petitioner on behalf of the first petitioner company stood bounced with an endorsement “funds insufficient”, and that the petitioners consequently are liable for punishment under Section 138 of the Act as well as Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Again, a notice was given on 16.05.2007 by the second respondent. 5. Sri B.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the cause of action commences when notice was issued on 13.01.2007 and that cause of action does not commence once again when the second respondent issued another notice on 16.05.2007. I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that cause of action commences from 13.01.2007. 6. There was some controversy as to when the private complaint was lodged. I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that cause of action commences from 13.01.2007. 6. There was some controversy as to when the private complaint was lodged. The learned counsel for the petitioners filed the certified copy of the entire docket proceedings in C.C.No.118 of 2007. However there was any amount of confusion from the docket proceedings regarding the date on which the complaint was filed by the second respondent. Consequently, the original record was sent for. The original record discloses that the private complaint was lodged by the second respondent on 26.06.2007. 7. On the basis of the fact that the private complaint was lodged on 26.06.2007, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that C.C.No.118 of 2007 is barred by limitation. Under the provisions of the Act, from the very date of the receipt of the notice, the private complaint should be filed within 45 days. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that while the notice was issued on 13.01.2007, filing of the private complaint before the Court on 26.06.2007, is hopelessly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, contended that the second notice was in respect of cheque bearing No.321874 as well as cheque bearing No.321872 and cheque bearing No.321873 and that the first notice on 13.01.2007 did not include cheque bearing No.321874. In the event the first notice dated 13.01.2007 does not cover cheque bearing No.321874, the question whether the present calendar case so far as the cheque bearing No.321874 would be maintainable or not deserves to be examined at the out side. The second notice, as already pointed out, was issued on 16.05.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are not aware of the second notice and that they never received the second notice. The private complaint, on the other hand, shows the postal acknowledgments of the second notice in the list of documents. The record of the trial Court shows that the second notice was served upon the petitioners. I, therefore, accept the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that the second notice was issued on 16.05.2007 and that the same was served upon the petitioners. The notices were served upon the petitioners on 21.05.2007. The record of the trial Court shows that the second notice was served upon the petitioners. I, therefore, accept the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that the second notice was issued on 16.05.2007 and that the same was served upon the petitioners. The notices were served upon the petitioners on 21.05.2007. The complaint was lodged on 26.06.2007. The complaint thus was within 45 days from the date of service of the notice. The complaint consequently is within time. 9. However, the question is whether the first notice did not include the cheque bearing No.321874. Unless the first notice did not include this cheque, the second notice cannot save the limitation in view of the earlier notice dated 13.01.2007. 10. In the notice dated 13.01.2007, para 1 gives the details of the five cheques as serial nos.1 to 5. In para 2, it was recited that the second respondent presented “cheques serial nos.2 to 4” before the bank. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that “cheques serial nos.2 to 4” in para 2 of notice dated 13.01.2007 means cheques bearing Nos.321872, 321873 and 321874. The learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, contended that “cheques serial nos.2 to 4” means the serial number of the cheques as mentioned in para 1 of the notice namely cheques bearing nos.321871, 321872 and 321873. The second notice, dated 16.05.2007, refers to the entire cheque numbers of the three cheques as 321872, 321873 and 321874. I, therefore, consider that “cheques serial numbers 2 to 4” in para 2 of the first notice means serial numbers as shown in para 1 namely cheques bearing No.321871, 321872 and 321873. Consequently, no notice was issued on 13.01.2007 in respect of cheque bearing No.321874 dated 30.11.2006 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. This cheque was included in the second notice dated 16.05.2007. So far as cheque bearing No.321874 is concerned, notice dated 16.05.2007 is the statutory notice. The complaint having been filed on 26.06.2007 is well within time so far as this cheque is concerned. I, therefore, consider that the complaint is maintainable in respect of cheque bearing No.321874. 11. So far as cheques bearing Nos.321872 and 321873 are concerned, the earlier notice dated 13.01.2007 shall be computed to be the statutory notice. Where the complaint was filed before the Court on 26.06.2007, such laying of the complaint is barred by limitation. I, therefore, consider that the complaint is maintainable in respect of cheque bearing No.321874. 11. So far as cheques bearing Nos.321872 and 321873 are concerned, the earlier notice dated 13.01.2007 shall be computed to be the statutory notice. Where the complaint was filed before the Court on 26.06.2007, such laying of the complaint is barred by limitation. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to allow this petition so far as cheques bearing nos.321872 and 321873 only and dismiss the petition in respect of cheque bearing no.321874 is concerned. 12. Accordingly, the complaint leading to C.C.No.118 of 2007 is found to have been barred by limitation so far as cheques bearing No.321872 and 321873 are concerned and is accordingly quashed. The complaint is well within time so far as cheque bearing No.321874 is concerned. The petition for quashing C.C.No.118 of 2007 in respect of cheque bearing no.321874 also is dismissed. Miscellaneous petition pending, if any, in this criminal petition shall stand closed.