Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur
Order Date: 17 October 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Jayant Shivpal Banchhode, 48, businessman, residing at 559, E‑Ward, Vyapari Peth, Shahupuri, Kolhapur.
- Respondents: 1) Chintamani Dairy & Breeding Farm Pvt. Ltd., Reg. Office B‑1/A‑1/304, Kumar Prassann, Wanwadi, Pune‑411040; 2) Balasaheb Babanrao Nagavade, 50, businessman, same address; 3) Vaishali Balasaheb Nagavade, 45, businessman, Plot No. 304, Kumar Prassann, Fatima Nagar, Wanwadi, Pune‑411040; 4) The State of Maharashtra.
- Nature of proceedings: Criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the CrPC, challenging the judgment and order dated 23 December 2022 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur, which had discharged Respondents 1 and 2 of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the IPC.
- Original complaint (Regular Criminal Case No. 445 of 2015) filed under Section 138 NI Act, read with Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC and Section 34 IPC.
- Key dates & facts: Cheque No. 000047 dated 9 Feb 2015 for Rs 25,00,000 presented on 10 Mar 2015 and dishonoured the same day; demand notice under Section 138(b) issued on 12 Mar 2015 and served on 14 Mar 2015; complaint presented to Magistrate on 30 Apr 2015.
- Respondents 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 245 CrPC on 10 Nov 2021; Magistrate on 23 Dec 2022 discharged them of the Section 138 and Section 420 offences.
- Petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No. 30 of 2023; Revisional Court on 18 Jul 2023 upheld the Magistrate’s order.
- Petitioner’s limited challenge: only the discharge under Section 138 NI Act, not the discharge under Section 420 IPC.
- Core legal issue: Whether the complaint filed on 30 Apr 2015 was within the 30‑day limitation prescribed by Section 138(b) of the NI Act.
- Arguments: Petitioner (Adv. Anand S. Patil) argued the 15‑day notice period expired on 29 Mar 2015, so cause of action began on 30 Mar 2015; filing on 30 Apr 2015 is within 30 days. Respondent (Adv. Jayant J. Bardeskar) accepted the start date but contended the 30‑day period expired on 29 Apr 2015, making the filing one day late.
- Statutory provisions cited: Section 3(35) General Clauses Act, 1897 (definition of “month”); Section 12(1) Limitation Act, 1963 (exclusion of first day).
- Judicial precedents relied upon:
- Supreme Court in H.S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. MSN Woodtec (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2906) – delay condonation requires a proper application.
- Supreme Court in Econ Antri Ltd. v. Rom Industries Ltd. (2014) 11 SCC 769 – “of” and “from” interpreted similarly; day of cause of action is included for computing period.
- Supreme Court in Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 1 – exclude first day, include last day when computing a month.
- Madras High Court in K.K.C. Textile Mills v. Maize Products – “one month” means a calendar month; inclusion of the last day makes filing on the 31st day permissible.
- Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) 12 SCC 210 – “month” is a calendar month, not a fixed 30‑day count.
Final Outcome
- The High Court held that, applying the Supreme Court’s rule of excluding the first day and including the last, the 30‑day period for filing the complaint expired on 30 April 2015.
- Consequently, the order dated 23 December 2022 discharging Respondents 1 and 2 of the offence under Section 138 NI Act is set aside.
- The discharge of Respondents 1 and 2 under Section 420 IPC is left untouched.
- Regular Criminal Case No. 445 of 2015 is restored to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur.
- The parties are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30 November 2026 at 11:00 a.m.
- No order as to costs.
Topics: Legal Proceedings, Negotiable Instruments Act