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.
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. 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.The complainant sent a notice to the accused by fax on 11/6/1996. 12/6/1996 the complainant also sent the same notice by registered post which was served on the accused on 25/6/1996. Cognizance of the offence was taken and process was issued.On 8/8/1996 the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N. Process was quashed by the Magistrate on the grounds urged by the accused. The High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and restored the complaint. The only point which was urged before this Court was that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence after the expiry of 30 days from the date of cause of action. This Court held that the notice envisaged in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 transmitted by fax would be in compliance with the legal requirement.