ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. and the accused/opposite party no.2. 2. This petition seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 23rd April 2016 passed in C.P. Case No.816 of 2014/T.R. No.1116 of 2016 by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad whereunder the sole accused/opposite party no.2 has been acquitted of the charges under Section 138 N.I. Act. The petition is barred by 118 days of delay for condonation of which an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 424/2017 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties both on the point of limitation and also on the merits of the case. The complainant/petitioner lodged the instant complaint alleging that the accused who had taken a loan of Rs.25 lakh in the year 1992 for business purpose had returned Rs.10 lakh in the year 1995 and kept Rs. 15 lakh in fixed deposits. He assured the complainant to pay Rs.1 crore in the year 2013. After repeated demands of loan amount, accused issued a cheque bearing no.0008012 dated 8th January 2014 of Rs.50 lakh of Bank of India, Barwadda Branch. It was presented on the same day in Allahabad Bank, Hirapur Branch, Dhanbad which was returned with a memo “Fund Insufficient”. The accused again assured that when he would represent the cheque on 22nd March 2014, the same would be encashed. Again on 23rd March 2014 the cheque was dishonoured with the return memo dated 25th March 2014 stating “Opening Balance Insufficient”. A legal notice was sent to the accused on 3rd April 2014 to which he did not reply. Thereafter on institution of the complaint for the offence under Section138 N.I. Act and finding prima-facie case, accused was summoned to face trial. He denied the charges on his appearance and sought trial. 4. Complainant examined himself as C.W.1 and exhibited the return memo dated 8th October 2014 as Exbt. 1, cheque bearing no.0008012 dated 8th January 2014 as Exbt.2, cheque return memo dated 25th March 2014 for Rs.50 lakh as Exbt.3, legal notice dated 3rd April 2014 as Exbt.4 and registered speed post slip dated 3rd April 2014 as Exbt.5. 5. 4. Complainant examined himself as C.W.1 and exhibited the return memo dated 8th October 2014 as Exbt. 1, cheque bearing no.0008012 dated 8th January 2014 as Exbt.2, cheque return memo dated 25th March 2014 for Rs.50 lakh as Exbt.3, legal notice dated 3rd April 2014 as Exbt.4 and registered speed post slip dated 3rd April 2014 as Exbt.5. 5. The defence examined two witnesses: D.W.1 Mirtunjay Singh and D.W.2 Bhola Lal as well as documentary evidence i.e. passbook was exhibited. 6. The learned trial court came to a finding that the complaint was premature as it was filed on 15th April 2014 when the legal notice itself was sent on 3rd April 2014. It also took note that the accused had refused the legal notice which was returned on 7th April 2014. As per the provisions of Section 138 N.I. Act Sub-clause (b) and (c) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque is required to make a demand for the payment of the amount by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and 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. Under Section 142 clause (b) complainant is required to file a complaint within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. It also provides that the cognizance of the 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. In the instant case learned trial court was of the view that though giving of notice and refusal to receive it was completed by 7th April 2014, but the complainant lodged the complaint on 15th April 2014 without expiry of 15 days period as contemplated under Section 138(c) of the N.I. Act. As such there was no complaint in the eye of law. It was held to be not maintainable. 7. As such there was no complaint in the eye of law. It was held to be not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not improve the case beyond what has been held by the learned court on this point. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of submission, tried to explain the delay in filing the petition on the ground that the petitioner had approached the appellate court in Cr. Appeal No.116/2016 on an erroneous advice. The Cr. Appeal was dismissed on 13th July 2016 holding that the proper remedy for the complainant is to seek permission under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. As such some time was consumed in preferring the instant petition thereafter which is not deliberate, rather properly explained. 8. Learned counsel for the accused/opposite party no.2 has opposed the submissions both on merit and on the ground of delay. 9. Learned A.P.P. has also supported the findings rendered by the learned trial court. 10. On consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the petition. Prayer made in I.A. No. 424/2017 is accordingly allowed. However, on due scrutiny of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the impugned judgment, we find no good reason to allow this petition and grant special leave to appeal to assail the findings in the appellate court. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.