Women seeking dating hyderabad
The accused gave some post-dated Cheques in repayment thereof.
Two of the said Cheques when presented on 3/5/1996 for encashment were dishonoured with the remark “no sufficient funds”.
Counsel submitted that in the circumstances this Court should hold that Saketh lays down correct proposition of law. Shri Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the provisions of the N. Act provide for a criminal offence and punishment and, therefore, must be strictly construed. Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act cannot be resorted to so as to extend that period even by one day. Counsel submitted that the word ‘within’ has been held by this Court to mean ‘on or before’.
Counsel submitted that it is well settled that when two different words are used in the same provision or statute, they convey different meaning. Arthur Paul Benthall AIR 1956 SC 35, The Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh v. If the starting point is excluded, that will render the word ‘within’ of Section 142(b) of the N.  Therefore, the complaint under Section 142(b) should be filed on or before or within, 30 days of the date on which the cause of action under Section 138(c) arises.
The High Court’s view is that the sender of the notice must know the date when it was received by the sendee, for otherwise he would not be in a position to count the period in order to ascertain the date when cause of action has arisen. In that case, the plaintiffs met with an accident at 5.45 p.m. He was run into by the defendant driving a motor car.
The fallacy of the above reasoning is that it erases the starting date of the period of 15 days envisaged in clause (c). The rule is now well established that where a particular time is given, from a certain date, within which an act is to be done, the day of the date is to be excluded.”  1 All E. He issued his writ in this action claiming damages for personal injuries.
In SIL Import USA, the complainant- Company’s case was that the accused owed a sum of US $ 72,075 (equivalent to more than 26 lakhs of rupees) to it towards the sale consideration of certain materials.This Court went on to observe that ordinarily in computing the time, the rule observed is to exclude the first day and to include the last. According to counsel, seen in this light, the word ‘of’ occurring in Section 138(c) and Section 142(b) is to be interpreted differently as against the word ‘from’ occurring in Section 138(a).Following the said rule in the facts before it, this Court excluded the date ‘15/10/1995’ on which the cause of action had arisen for counting the period of one month. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. The word ‘from’ may be taken as implying exclusion of the date in question and may well be governed by the General Clauses Act, 1897. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.‘15/10/1995’ has to be included in the period of limitation and thus the complaint was barred by time. Referring to several English decisions on the point, this Court observed that the principle of excluding the day from which the period is to be reckoned is incorporated in Section 12(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U. Section 138(b) provides that the payee must make a demand of the amount due to him within 30 days of the receipt of information from the bank.