R.R. Prasad, J. - This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint case bearing C-1 No.1807 of 2007 including the order dated 7.12.2007 whereby and where under the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner.

2. The ground of challenge of the order taking cognizance is that in the complaint there has been no averment with respect to service of notice upon the petitioner and thereby the complaint case cannot be maintained in view of the decision rendered in a case of Shakti Travel & Tour v. State of Bihar and another, (2002) 9 SCC 415.

3. Another ground on which the order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed is that the complaint has been filed after more than one and half month of the date of issuance of the notice and thereby the complaint never seems to have been filed within time as stipulated under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

4. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submitted that there has been averment in the complaint that notice has been sent to the accused on 25.9.2007 under registered post on proper address and thereby under clause 27 of the General Clauses Act, it would be deemed that notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 and thereby it cannot be said that no averment is there with respect to service of notice upon the complainant.

5. It was further submitted that the argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding complaint being barred by limitation on the plea that this complaint has not been filed within one and half month from the date of issuance of the notice but that is not the correct position of law rather complaint needs to be field within one and half month from the date of service of notice and in this case, since the averment has already been made in the complaint that notice under registered post on proper address has been sent on 25.9.2007, the presumption would be drawn that registered notice has been served only on 26.10.2007 and thereby complaint can always be said to have been filed well within one and half months as the same has been filed on 20.11.2007 and thereby the order taking cognizance never suffer from any illegality.

6. In the context of the submission made on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act which reads as under:

"142. Cognizance of the 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 ) 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 Matropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under Section 138. Further Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 reads as follows:-

138(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 ourse of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it does appear that in the event of non-payment of the amount of the cheque by the drawer within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice, the complaint needs to be filed within a month of such expiry of fifteen days, meaning thereby that within one month fifteen days, from the date of the receipt of the notice, the complaint needs to be filed. Here, in the instant case as has been stated on behalf of the opposite party no.2, averment has been made in the complaint that notice under registered post on proper address had been sent on 25.9.2007, it would be deemed under Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act that the same has been served on 25.10.2007 and thereby the complaint filed on 20.11.2007 within one month and fifteen days from that day, i.e.from 25.10.2007, is well within time.

7. So far other submission regarding non-maintainability of the complaint petition on account of non-mentioning of the fact of the service of notice is concerned, it be stated that statement certainly never appears to be there regarding service of notice in the complaint but the statement certainly is there that notice has been sent to the accused on 25.9.2007 under registered cover on proper address. In such situation, presumption can always be drawn by virtue of the provision as contained in Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act that notice was served upon the opposite party no.2. In that event, complaint does not suffer on that account and thereby it cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the decision rendered in a case of Shakti Travel & Tour v. State of Bihar and another (supra) as in that case the matter was never before the Supreme Court regarding presumption of the service of notice in terms of Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act and thereby that case is not applicable in the instant case. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance and hence, this application stands dismissed.