ORDER : The complainant is before this Court in this Revision Petition with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 22.01.2011 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary in Crl.A. No.167/2009 and further seeking to confirm the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C., at Bellary in C.C. No.8/2008. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath and the learned counsel appearing for respondent, Sri V.G. Bhat. 3. The respondent presented a private complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’). It is the case of the complainant that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-was borrowed by the accused on 25.10.2006 for the purpose of setting up an Industry by name ‘M/s. Ajay Engineering Industry’ in plots No.25 and 33 of Mundargi Industrial Estate at Bellary and the accused issued a cheque bearing No.019300 dated 15.05.2007 for the said amount. When the complainant presented the said cheque through her banker on 11.09.2007, the same was dishonoured for ‘Insufficiency of Funds’ in the account of the accused as per the Memo dated 12.09.2007 and 13.09.2007. The complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 19.09.2007 through RPAD as well as under Certificate of Posting. The said legal notice was duly served on the accused on 24.09.2007. To the said legal notice, the accused gave reply on 22.10.2007. However, the accused failed to make payment within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the legal notice, and therefore, the complaint was filed on 07.11.2007. 4. Before the trial Court, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D-1 to D-6 were got marked. 5. The learned Magistrate after conclusion of the trial convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Further an amount of Rs.2,98,000/-was ordered to be paid to the complainant out of the fine amount under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. 6. Further an amount of Rs.2,98,000/-was ordered to be paid to the complainant out of the fine amount under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. 6. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Crl.A. No.167/2009 before the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 22.01.2011 was pleased to allow the said appeal thereby setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and consequently dismissed the complaint. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lower Appellate Court has not at all re-appreciated the evidence on record, on the other hand dismissed the complaint only on the ground of limitation and holding that the complaint itself is not maintainable. He submits that the approach of the lower Appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that the complaint is barred by limitation is erroneous and further submits that the learned Sessions Judge totally mis-directed himself in considering the limitation provided under Section 142(b) of the Act. He submits that the complaint which was presented before the learned Magistrate was in time, and therefore, the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is unsustainable and accordingly seeks to allow the petition. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant fairly submitted that the complaint is presented within the limitation. However, he submits that the trial Court was not proper in convicting and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and the contentions raised by him before the lower Appellate Court was not considered and only on the ground of limitation the appeal was allowed. Hence, he submits that he should be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 9. It is not in dispute that the learned Sessions Judge allowed the criminal appeal filed by the accused only on the ground of limitation holding that the complaint was presented after the expiry of cause of action, and therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 10. 9. It is not in dispute that the learned Sessions Judge allowed the criminal appeal filed by the accused only on the ground of limitation holding that the complaint was presented after the expiry of cause of action, and therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 10. It is relevant to see that the cheque which is dated 15.05.2007 issued by the accused for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-was presented through banker on 11.09.2007 and the same was dishonoured on 13.09.2007 and in this regard a legal notice dated 19.09.2007 was issued by the complainant which was duly served on the accused on 24.09.2007. 11. Section 138 of the Act reads thus – “138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. 11. Section 138 of the Act reads thus – “138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. —Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless— (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (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) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.” 12. In the instant case, the cheque has been presented within a period of six months and notice has also been issued within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of information by the complainant from the Bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid. In the instant case, the cheque has been presented within a period of six months and notice has also been issued within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of information by the complainant from the Bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid. Under Section 138(c) of the Act if the drawer of such cheque fails to make any payment to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice then the cause of action arises for the complainant to present a complaint. 13. Section 142 of the Act reads thus : “142. Cognizance of offences.— Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)— (a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause(c) of the proviso to section 138: [Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.] (c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138.] 14. Under Section 142(b) of the Act complaint has to be presented within one month from the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138. It is also provided that cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. 15. Admittedly in the present case legal notice was duly served on the accused on 24.09.2007 and on the expiry of 15 days the cause of action arises for the complainant to present a complaint and under Section 142(b) complaint has to be presented within one month from the date on which cause of action arises. 15. Admittedly in the present case legal notice was duly served on the accused on 24.09.2007 and on the expiry of 15 days the cause of action arises for the complainant to present a complaint and under Section 142(b) complaint has to be presented within one month from the date on which cause of action arises. Hence, the complaint filed on 07.11.2007 cannot be said to be beyond the limitation period since the same is filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arose, as provided under Section 142(b) of the Act. 16. Though the learned Sessions Judge rightly observed that the cause of action starts from the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice to the accused and the limitation of one month starts running on expiry of 15 days stipulated under clause (c) of Section 138 of the Act in the event of non-payment of amount of cheque, however, erroneously held that 30 days expired by 23.10.2007. The said observations and findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court is totally erroneous and the impugned judgment thereby allowing the appeal filed by the accused is therefore unsustainable in law. 17. Since the appeal was allowed by the Sessions Court only on the ground of limitation, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the lower Appellate Court for fresh disposal of the appeal preferred by the accused in accordance with law. With the above observation, I pass the following : ORDER i. The Revision Petition is allowed. ii. The judgment and order dated 22.01.2011 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary, in Crl.A. No.167/2009 is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remanded back to the Sessions Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties are left open.