ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be said to be premature as has been held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court. It is not necessary to give detailed facts. Suffice it to say that on the basis of complaint filed, the Magistrate took cognizance, but the accused carried the matter in revision to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who was of the opinion that the complaint is premature and, accordingly, allowed the revision. The complainant approached the High Court which affirmed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. From the reply of the accused to the complainant on receipt of the notice from the complainant, it is crystal clear that the said notice was received by the accused on 28-10-1995. The complaint having been filed on 16-11-1995, the same cannot be held to be premature. The learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court, therefore, in our view, were in error to hold that the complaint is premature. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The criminal proceedings may now continue.
3. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 3555-56 of 1998.