ORDER 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This criminal leave to appeal has been preferred claiming for the following reliefs :- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application for leave to appeal may kindly be accepted and the application for leave to appeal may kindly be treated as appeal against acquittal and the judgment impugned dated 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Regular Criminal Case No.73 of 2015 (CIS No.297 of 2015) Sahiram Vs. Brijlal may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent be convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act." 3. This Court observes that the mandatory period of notice was not adhered to by complainant and the complaint was filed before 15 days, which is the mandatory period. 4. Precedent law rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Alavi Haji, C.C. Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.767/2007) decided on 18.05.2007, is applicable in the matter. 5. Relevant portion of which reads as follows:- "17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act." 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the period of fifteen days as prescribed under Section 138(c) of Act of 1881 is a window available to the drawer of Negotiable Instrument to enable him to satisfy the legally enforceable debt and to avoid criminal proceedings. 7. The Legislature was conscious when 15 days time was given as mandatory period under Section 138(c) to ensure that the drawer gets a fair deal in the shape of opportunity to satisfy the legally enforceable debt in case he desires to. 8. It is noted that normally in criminal law notice is not mandatory but in the Negotiable Instruments Act a special provision has been made with mandatory impact so that the drawer can avoid criminal proceedings against him by making payment of the legally enforceable debt. The Negotiable Instruments Act is akin to civil law in many aspects but criminal culpability has been carved out only to ensure proper credence to the instrument. 9. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Alavi Haji (supra) clearly stipulates the necessity of Section 138(c). 10. In light of the above made observations, the leave to appeal does not call for any interference by this Court. The same is, thus, dismissed.