ORDER : 1. This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the judgment dated 28th November, 2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal affirmed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th February, 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 968 of 2018. 2. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that complainant Renu Sharma filed a complaint against Om Prakash Sharma with these averments that the husband of the complainant is the retired Senior Deputy Director (SAIL), Bokaro General Hospital. The accused Om Prakash Sharma was running a registered company in the name and style of Pioneer New Era Industries Limited situated at Bhootnath Mandir, Dumarjor, Dhanbad Road, Chas, Bokaro. The accused along with Ram Murat Sharma and his wife Malti Devi, who was acquainted with complainant came to the residence of the complainant and persuaded to invest Rs.10 lac in his company under a scheme telling the same very lucrative. At the first instant, the complainant and her husband expressed their unwillingness but on the insistence of the accused, the complainant had invested Rs.9,80,000/- through cheque no. 10524 and Rs.20,000/- in cash in the aforesaid company. The said cheque of Rs.9,80,000/- was encashed by the accused/appellant on 10th – 11th November, 2012 and thereafter the accused acknowledged the receipt certificate of the company in the name of complainant. On demand made by the complainant and her husband, the accused issued a cheque of Rs.14,00,000/- in favour of complainant of Axis Bank, B.S. City vide cheque no. 035245 dated 15th June, 2018 of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the principal amount and Rs.4,00,000/- towards monthly payment to discharge his liability. When the complainant presented the said cheque to her banker, the same got dishonoured with endorsement “insufficient funds” on 6th July, 2018. The complainant gave two legal notice through his lawyer on 1st August, 2018 on his residential address as well as the official address which were received by the accused on 2nd August, 2018 and 9th August, 2018 respectively. Despite service of notice till date no payment was made by the accused to the complainant and thereafter the complaint was filed before the court of Magistrate concerned. 3. Despite service of notice till date no payment was made by the accused to the complainant and thereafter the complaint was filed before the court of Magistrate concerned. 3. On this complaint, the learned court of Magistrate took cognizance and the accused Om Prakash Sharma appeared. His statement of accusation was also recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. 4. On behalf of the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint in oral evidence examined C.W.-1 Sachchidanand Sharma, C.W.-2 Renu Sharma and C.W.-3 Shiv Murat Sharma. 5. In documentary evidence on behalf of the complainant adduced the passbook of Bank of India Ext.1, a cheque no. 035245 dated 15th June, 2018 of Rs.14,00,000/- of Axis Bank Ltd., return memo dated 6th July, 2018 Ext.3, copy of legal notice dated 1st August, 2018 Ext.4, two postal receipts Exts.5 and 5/1 and an acknowledgement receipt dated 11th December, 2012 of Pioneer New Era Industrial Ltd. 6. On behalf of the accused in defence evidence examined A.W.-1 Satish Kumar Sharma and A.W.-2 Dinesh Kumar Sharma. In documentary evidence filed the photocopy of the reply notice. 7. The learned trial court after hearing rival submissions of the parties, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence 17th February, 2022 against Om Prakash Sharma and sentenced accordingly. 8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of 17th February, 2022, the petitioner/convict Om Prakash Sharma preferred Cr. Appeal No. 13 of 2022. The same was also dismissed by the court of Sessions Judge, Bokaro vide judgment dated 28th November, 2022 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. 9. Aggrieved from both these judgments, the instant criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that both the judgments passed by the learned trial court and the appellate court are bad in the eyes of law. The learned court below failed to take into consideration the cheque in question was issued on behalf of the company and the company was not impleaded as an accused. In absence of company, the prosecution and conviction of the petitioner is not justified. The learned court below misconstrued the fact that the cheque was not issued by the petitioner for the amount of as alleged was encashed through account of company and not in individual capacity of the petitioner. In absence of company, the prosecution and conviction of the petitioner is not justified. The learned court below misconstrued the fact that the cheque was not issued by the petitioner for the amount of as alleged was encashed through account of company and not in individual capacity of the petitioner. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as all the allegations are made in the complaint that payment was also made on behalf of the husband/complainant. The learned court below had not taken into consideration the fact that the complaint was barred by limitation and in absence of prayer for condonation of delay, the same was not maintainable. 10. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable reason being that the company was not impleaded as party as accused in this case while there is averment in the complaint itself that initially the amount was paid by the complainant for the company and the petitioner has been arrayed as a party in individual capacity. On this very ground the judgment passed by the learned trial court which was affirmed by the learned appellate court is not tenable. It is further submitted that the complaint was also time barred. The learned trail court without condoning the delay in preferring the complaint has taken cognizance on the same after expiry of the prescribed period. Both the courts below did not give its finding and taken into consideration this material fact, as such, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court which was affirmed by the learned appellate court bears illegality and prayed to allow this criminal revision. 12. Per contra, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that complaint was filed within time. As such there was not question before the court concerned to consider any application for condonation of delay. 12. Per contra, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that complaint was filed within time. As such there was not question before the court concerned to consider any application for condonation of delay. So far as not impleading the company as a party is concerned, there was no need to implead company as a party in this case, since although the averment is made in the complaint, yet the cheque in question which was issued by Om Prakash (the accused) himself not in capacity of office bearer of the said company. As such there was no need to implead company as a party. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court which was affirmed by the learned appellate court bears no infirmity and contended to dismiss this criminal revision. 13. From the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points for determination for disposal of this criminal revision are being framed: i. Whether the complaint was time barred? ii. Whether the company was the necessary party in the complaint? 14. Disposal of Point for Determination No. (i): Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint in question was filed time barred as the same was instituted on 26th September, 2018. The copy of the complaint is also made Annexure-1 with this criminal revision petition while the time to file the complaint from the receipt of the notice expired much before 26th September, 2018. 15. From perusal of the record of learned lower court, it is apparent that the complaint was filed on behalf of the complainant Renu Sharma on 10th September, 2018. Herein to decide the question whether the complaint was filed time barred, firstly this Court has to see on which date the cheque in question was issued, when it was dishonoured, when the cause of action arose and whether the complaint was filed within 30 days from arising cause of action. From record, it is apparent that the cheque in question which is Ext.2 was issued on 15th June, 2018 for the amount of Rs.14 lacs. The said cheque was presented on behalf of the complainant before the bank concerned within prescribed time as given under the Proviso (a) of Section 138 of N.I. Act. From record, it is apparent that the cheque in question which is Ext.2 was issued on 15th June, 2018 for the amount of Rs.14 lacs. The said cheque was presented on behalf of the complainant before the bank concerned within prescribed time as given under the Proviso (a) of Section 138 of N.I. Act. The same cheque was dishonoured on 6th July, 2018 on the ground of insufficient fund. The return memo of the unpaid cheque is Ext.3 on record. From the date of 6th July, 2018 within 30 days it was incumbent upon the complainant to give legal notice to the accused in view of Proviso (b) of Section 138 of N.I. Act. In the case in hand, the legal notice was issued on 1st August, 2018 as is evident from the Ext.4. As such from the date of return memo dated 6th July, 2018 within 30 days, the legal notice was issued on behalf of the complainant and the reply notice was given on behalf of the accused on 5th September, 2018. As per averment made in the complaint after receiving of the notice, no payment was made within 15 days on behalf of the accused, as such, the cause of action to file the complaint arose from the date of receipt of the notice. Admittedly this notice was received to the accused on his residential and official address on 2nd August and 9th August, 2018 respectively, as such, this fact is also corroborated with Ext. 5 which are the postal track receipt in regard to delivery of the notice. From the date of 2nd August, 2018, on 17th August, 2018, the cause of action arose to the complainant and as per the date of 9th August, 2018, the cause of action for filing the complaint arose to the complainant on 24th August, 2018. 16. In view of Section 142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint is to be made within one month from the date of arising cause of action as under clause (c) of the proviso under Section 138. As such from the date of 17th August, 2018, the complaint should be lodged by 16th September, 2018 and as per date of cause of action on 24th August, 2018 it should be filed by 23rd August, 2018. As such from the date of 17th August, 2018, the complaint should be lodged by 16th September, 2018 and as per date of cause of action on 24th August, 2018 it should be filed by 23rd August, 2018. In the case in hand, the complaint was filed on 10th September, 2018, as such, the compliant was also filed within one month from the date of arising cause of action and the same was very much maintainable in view of Section 142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act. 17. The finding recorded by the learned trial court which was affirmed by the learned appellate court on this point for determination does not bears any illegality and same needs no interference by this Court and the complaint is not found time barred, rather it was filed within prescribed time. Accordingly, this point for determination is being decided against the petitioner and in favour of the Opposite Party No. 2. 18. The provision of Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act are reproduced hereunder: “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 provision 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. (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 of other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 142. Cognizance of offences: (1) 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. (2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction: (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated. (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. Explanation - For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account. 19. Point for Determination No. (ii): Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised this plea that as per averment made in the complaint the cheque was also issued on behalf of the company and initially the amount was also paid by the complainant to the petitioner for the company, therefore, the company was the necessary party in view of Section 141 N.I. Act. On this issue, the averment made in the complaint itself is to be taken into consideration. 20. In paragraph 2 of the complaint, the accused Om Prakash is shown to run a company in the name and style of Pioneer New Era Industry Ltd. In paragraph 6 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the cheque was issue for the amount of Rs.9,80,000/- in favour of Pioneer New Era Industry Ltd. In paragraph 8 of the complaint, it is stated that the acknowledgement receipt certificate was also issued of the said company. In view of the averment made in the complaint, the documents adduced on behalf of the complainant also become relevant to take into consideration. In this regard, the document Ext.6 also become relevant. The receipt of amount of Rs.10 lacs is issued by authorized signatory of Pioneer New Era Ltd. Admittedly the signature thereon is of Om Prakash Sharma, who is accused herein. The cheque which is in question and the same was also dishonoured is Ext.2 on the record. This cheque was issued on behalf of Om Prakash Sharma whose name is also reflected on the cheque. The same cheque is also signed by Om Prakash Sharma and this cheque is dated 15th June, 2018. This cheque issued for amount of Rs.14 lacs in favour of Renu Sharma. 21. This cheque was issued on behalf of Om Prakash Sharma whose name is also reflected on the cheque. The same cheque is also signed by Om Prakash Sharma and this cheque is dated 15th June, 2018. This cheque issued for amount of Rs.14 lacs in favour of Renu Sharma. 21. Herein though the averment are made in the complaint that the cheque was also issued on behalf of the company, yet from the documentary evidence, the averment made in the complaint is not found corrupt. The cheque in question being issued by the Om Prakash himself in his individual capacity, as such, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheque was issued on behalf of the company cannot be accepted that the cheque was issued on behalf of the company. Even if the complainant has made the said averment with whatsoever reason but the cheque in question was being issued by the petitioner Om Prakash Sharma in his individual capacity, though he was running the company, namely, Pioneer New Era Industry Ltd. Therefore, the company cannot be accepted as a necessary party to be impleaded as an accused. Had this cheque been issued on behalf of the company by the signature of Om Prakash Sharma, certainly the company was the necessary party in view of Section 141 of the N.I. Act but the cheque in question being issued in individual capacity, the company is not found necessary party. 22. Herein the plea as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the initial receipt which was issued on behalf of the company which is Ext.6. From the document Ext.6, the receipt was issued by the authorized signatory of Pioneer New Era Industrial Ltd. but the signature thereon immediately is of Om Prakash Sharma, who is petitioner. Even if the legally recoverable debt or liability for which Rs.10 lacs were paid by the complainant to Om Prakash and Om Prakash Sharma gave the receipt of the same in his own signature on behalf of the company. On this sole ground in regard to legally recoverable debt and liability it cannot be accepted that for the dishonor of the cheque, the company would also be liable because the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner Om Prakash in his individual capacity and in his own signature. On this sole ground in regard to legally recoverable debt and liability it cannot be accepted that for the dishonor of the cheque, the company would also be liable because the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner Om Prakash in his individual capacity and in his own signature. In view of above this point of determination is also decided against the petitioner and in favour of the O.P. No. 2. 22.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.J. Agro Tech. Ltd. vs. Water Base Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 2596 at paragraph 9 has held as under: “9. In the instant case, the cheque which had been dishonoured may have been issued by the Respondent No. 11 for discharging the dues of the Appellant No. 1 Company and its Directors to the Respondent No. 1 Company and the Respondent. Company may have a good case against the Appellant No. 1 Company for recovery of its dues before other fora, but it would not be sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 138 of the 1881 Act. The Appellant Company and its Directors cannot be made liable under Section 138 of the 1881 Act for a default committed by the Respondent No. 11. An action in respect of a criminal or a quasi-criminal provision has to be strictly construed in keeping with the provisions alleged to have been violated. The proceedings in such matters are in personam and cannot be used to foist an offence on some other person, who under the statute was not liable for the commission of such offence.” 23. In view of finding recorded by this Court hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trail court which was affirmed by the learned appellate court bears no illegality and same needs no interference. 24. Accordingly, this criminal revision is hereby dismissed. 25. Consequently, the order dated 28th November, 2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2022 is hereby affirmed. 26. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. 27. Let the Lower Court Records along with the copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the court concerned.