ECON ANTRI LTD.versusROM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.

                       [2013] 14 S.C.R. 74


A                       ECON ANTRI LTD.
                                 V.
                 ROM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2006)
                        AUGUST 26, 2013
B
      [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI,, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
                 AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

       Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s.142(b} and s.138,
C proviso (c) - Cheque bouncing case- Complaint filed u!s.138
  of NI Act - Limitation period - One month period prescribed
  u/s. 142(b} of NI Act - Manner of calculation - Held: The
  period should be reckoned by excluding date on which cause
  of action arose - Where a particular time is given, from a
D certain date, within which an act is to be done, the day of the
  date is to be excluded - Inapplicability of the Limitation Act
  - General Clauses Act, 1897 - s.9 - Limitation Act, 1963.

        Words and Phrases - words 'of, 'from' and 'after'.

E      The question for consideration before this Court
  was: whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the
  Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is within or beyond
  time if it is not filed within one month from the date on
  which the cause of action arose under clause (c) of the
F proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act. Reframed in simpler
  language, the question for consideration was whether for
  calculating the period of one month which is prescribed
  under Section 142(b) of the NI Act, the period has to be
  reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of
G action arose.

        Answering the Reference, the Court

       · HELD:1.1. It is not possible to hold that the word 'of'

H                                74
    ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                 75


 occurring in Section 138(c) and 142(b) of the Negotiable        A
 Instruments Act, 1881 is to be interpreted differently as
 against the word 'from' occurring in Section 138(a) of the
  N.I. Act; and that for the purposes of Section 142(b),
 which prescribes that the complaint is to be filed within
 30 days of the date on which the cause of action arises,        B
  the starting day on which the cause of action arises
  should be included for computing the period of 30 days.
  The words 'of', 'from' and 'after' may, in a given case,
  mean really the same thing. The word 'of' is sometimes
  equivalent of 'after'. Even though Limitation Act is held      c.
  to be not applicable to the NI Act, the above conclusion
  can be reached on the basis of Section 9 of the General
. Clauses Act, 1897 and on the basis of a long line of
  English decisions that where a particular time is given,
  from a certain date, within which an act is to be done, the    D
  day of the date is to be excluded. Section 9 of the General
  Clauses Act, 1897 states that in any Central Act or
  Regulation made after the commencement of the General
  Clauses Act, 1897, it shall be sufficient to use the word
  'from' for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of   E
  days or any other period of time and to use the word 'to'
  for the purpose of including the last in a series of days
  or any other period of time. Sub-Section (2) of Section 9
  of the General Clauses Act, 1897 states that this Section
  applies to all Central Acts made after the third day of
  January, 1868, and to all Regulations made on or after the     F
  fourteenth day of January, 1887. This Section would,
  therefore, be applicable to the N.I. Act. [Paras 22, 24 and
  17) [95-A-C; 103-B-0; 104-B-C]

     1.2. It is thus held that for the purpose of calculating    G
the period of one month, which is prescribed under
Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the period has to be
reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of
action arose. [Para 25) [104-E]
                                                                 H
    76      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A      Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3
    SCC 1: 1999 (1) SCR 963 - affirmed.

        SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore
    (1999) 4 sec 567: 1999 (2) SCR 958 - overruled.
B       Danial Latifi and Another v. U. 0.1. (2001) 7 SCC 740:
    2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 419 - held inapplicable.

         Vasantlal Ranchhoddas Patel & Ors. v. Union of India &
    Ors. AIR 1967 Bombay 138 - approved.
c       Haru Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal (1972) 1 SCC
    639: 1972 (3) SCR 329 and Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v.
    Dinanath Sharma (2000) 8 SCC 649: 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR
    634 --relied on.

D      Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashoka Alloy Steel
  Ltd. <~ Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 340; Subodh S. Salaskar v.
  Jayprakash M. Shah & Anr. (2008)13 SCC 689: 2008 (11)
  SCR 681; State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Himachal
  Techno Engineers & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 210: 2010 (8) SCR
E 1025; The Member, Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthall
  AIR 1956 SC 35: 1955 SCR 842; The Labour Commissioner,
  Madhya Pradesh v. Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd. and others AIR
  1964 SC 1687: 1964 SCR 484; B.R. Enterprises etc. V. State
  of UP. & Ors. etc. (1999) 9 SCC 700: 1999 (2) SCR 1111;
F Kai/ash Nath Agarwal and ors. v. Pradeshiya Industrial &
  Investment Corporation of U. P. Ltd. and another (2003) 4
  SCC 305: 2003 (1) SCR 1159; DLF Qutab Enclave Complex
  Educational Charitable Trust v. State of Haryana and others
  (2003) 5 SCC 622: 2003 (2) SCR 1 and" Gopa/das Udhavdas
G Ahuja and another v. Union of India and others (2004) 7 sec
  33; 2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 942 - referred to.

         The Goldsmiths' Company v. The West Metropolitan
    Railway Company (1904) 1 K.B; Cartwright v. Maccormack
    [1963] 1 All E. R. 11; Marren v. Dawson Bentley & Co. Ltd.
H
    ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.              77


(1961) 20.B. 135; Radcliffe v. Bartholomew (1892) 1 A
Q.B.161; Stewart v. Chapman (1951) 2 KB 792; In re. North.
Ex parte Hasluck (1895) 2 Q.B. 264; Lester v. Garland 15
Ves. 248 and Ex parte Fallon (1793) 5 Term Rep 283 -
referred to.
                                                           B
     Halsbury's laws of England 3rd Edn., vol. 37 p. 95 -
referred to.
                    Case Law Reference:
    1999 (1) SCR 963          affirmed         Para 2        c
    1999 (2) SCR 958          overruled        Para 3
    1972 (3) SCR 329          relied on        Para 5
    (2006) 9 sec 340          referred to      Para 5
                                                             D
    2008 (11) SCR 681         referred to      Para 5
    2010 (8) SCR 1025         referred to      Para 6
    2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 634 relied on          Para 6
                                                             E
    1955 SCR 842              referred to      Para 7
    1964 SCR 484              referred to      Para 7
    1999 (2) SCR 1111         referred to      Para 7
    2003 (1) SCR 1159         referred to      Para 7        F

    2003 (2) SCR 1            referred to      Para 7
    2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 419 held inapplicable     Para 7
    (1904) 1 K.B              referred to      Para 10       G
    [1963) 1 All E.R. 11      referred to      Para 11
    (1961) 2Q.B. 135          referred to      Para 12

                                                             H
    78      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A        (1892) 1 Q.B.161              referred to       Para 12
         (1951) 2 KB 792               referred to       Para 13
         (1895) 2 Q.B. 264             referred to       Para 14
         15 Ves. 248                   referred to       Para 14
B
         AIR 1967 Bombay 138           approved          Para 21
         2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 942 referred to             Para 21

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
c   No. 1079 of 2006.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2004 of the High
    Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Miscellaneous
    Cr. l\lo. 4385 of 2002.
D        Prerna Mehta, Ankur Mody, Vikas Mehta for the Appellant.

        Sunil Gupta, Jasbir Singh Malike, Varun Punia, Kamakshi
    S. Mehlwal for the Respondents.

E        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. On 13/10/
    2006, while granting leave in Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
    No.211 of 2005, this Court passed the following order:

F        "In our view, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for
         the appellant in the case of Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v.
         India Securities Ltd. (19991 3 SCC 1 requires
         reconsideration. Orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice
         may be obtained for placing this matter before a larger
G        Bench."

         Pursuantto the above order, this appeal is placed before
         us.

         2. Since the referral order states that the judgment of this
H
      ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.              79
          [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
Court in Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securities Ltd. 1 A
("Saketh") requires reconsideration, we must first refer to the
said judgment. In that case, this Court identified the question
of law involved in the appeal before it as under:

      "Whether the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI 8
      Act is within or beyond time as it was contended that it
      was not filed within one month from the date on which the
      cause of action arose under clause (c) of the proviso to
      Section 138 of the NI Act?"

    The same question was reframed in simpler language as C
under:

      "Whether for calculating the period of one month which
      is prescribed under Section 142(b}, the period has to be
      reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of D
      action arose?"

     3. It is pointed out to us that there is a variance between
the view expressed by this Court on the above question in
Saketh and in SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters,
Bangalore. 2 We will have to therefore re-examine it for the E
purpose of answering the reference. The basic provisions of
law involved in this reference are proviso (c) to Section 138 and
Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the
NI Act").
                                                               F
     4. Facts o"f Saketh need to be stated to understand how
the above question of law arose. But, before we tum to the facts,
we must quote Section 138 and Section 142 of the N.I. Act. We
must also quote Section 12(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act,
1963 and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, on which G
reliance is placed in Saketh.

      Section 138 of the N.I. Act reads as under:

1.   (1999) 3 sec 1.
2    (1994) 4 sec 567.                                         H
    80       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A        "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of
         funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a
         person on an account maintained by him with a banker for
         payment of any amount of money to another person from
         out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part,
B        of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid.
         either because of the amount of money standing to the
         credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque
         or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that
         account by an agreement made with that bank, such person
c        shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall,
         without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be
         punished with imprisonment for a term which may be
         extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to
         twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
D        Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply
         unless-

         (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a
         period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or
E        within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

         (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the Cheque,
         as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of
         the said amou11t of money by giving a notice in writing, to
         the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt
F        of information by him from the bank regarding the return
         of the cheque as unpaid; and

         (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment
         of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case
G        may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within
         fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice."

         Section 142 of the N.I. Act reads as under:

         "142. Cognizance of offences: Notwithstanding anything
H
    ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                     81
        [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
    contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of          A
    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           B
    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 (c) of the
    proviso to section 138;
                                                                     c
    [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 Metropolitan Magistrate or    D
    a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence
    punishable under section 138."

    Sections 12(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads
as under:                                                            E
    "12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings.- (1) In
    computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or
    application, the day from which such period is to be
    reckoned, shall be excluded.                                     F
    (2) In.computing the period of limitation for an appeal or
    an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for
    review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment
    complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for
    obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order                G
    appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall
    be excluded."

    Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as
unde~                                                                H
    82        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 14 S.C.R.


A        "9. Commencement and termination of time.-

          (1) In any [Central Act] or Regulation made after the
          commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the
          purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any
          other period of time, to use the word "from", and, for the
B
          purpo,se of including the last in a series of days or any
          other period of time, to use the word "to".

          (2) This section applies also to all [Central Acts] made
          after the third day of January, 1868, and to all Regulations
c         made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887."

          5. In Saketh cheques dated 15/3/1995 and 16/3/1995
    issued by the accused therein bounced when presented for
    encashment. Notices were served on the accused on 29/9/
0   1995. As per proviso (c) to Section 138 of the NI Act, the
    accused were required to make the payment of the said amount
    within 15 days of the receipt of the notice i.e. on or before 14/
    10/1995. The accused failed to pay the amount. The cause of
    action, th~refore, arose on 15/10/1995. According to the
E   complainant for calculating one month's period contemplated
    under Section 142(b), the date '15/10/1995' has to be excluded.
    The complaint filed on 15/11 /1995 was, therefore, within time.
    According to the accused, however, the date on which the
    cause of ac:tion arose i.e. '15/10/1995' has to be included in
    the period of limitation and thus the complaint was barred by
F   time. The accused, therefore, filed petition under Section 482
    of the Codi~ of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the· Code") for
    quashing the process issued by the learned Magistrate. That
    petition was rejected by the High Court. Hence, the accused
    approached this Court. This Court referred to its judgment in
G   Haru Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal. 3 wherein it was held
    that the rule is well established that where a particular time is
    given from a certain date within which an act is to be aone, the
    day on that date is to be excluded; the effect of defining the

H   3.   (1972) 1   sec 639.
      ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                    83
          [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.)
period from such a day until such a day within which an act is        A
to be done is to exclude the first day and to include the last day.
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. This Court observed that this        B
principle is also incorporated in Section 9 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897. This Court further observed that there is no
reason for not adopting the rule enunciated in Haru Das Gupta,
which is consistently followed and which is adopted in the
General Clauses Act and the Limitation Act. This Court went           c
on to observe that ordinarily in computing the time, the rule
observed is to exclude the first day and to include the last.
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. Saketh has been followed        D
by this Court in Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashoka
Alloy Steel Ltd. & Ors. 4 In Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jayprakash
M. Shah & Anr., 5 there is a reference to Jindal Steel & Power
Ltd.

     6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some         E
length. We have also carefully perused their written
submissions. Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that Saketh lays down the correct law. She
submitted that as held by this Court in Saketh while computing
the period of one month as provided under Section 142(b) of           F
the N.1. Act, the first day on which the cause of action has arisen
has to be excluded. The same principle is applicable in
computing the period of 15 days under Section 138(c) of the
N.I. Act. Counsel submitted that Saketh has been followed by
this Court in Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and Subodh S.               G
Salaskar. Counsel also relied on Section 12( 1) of the Limitation
Act, 1961 which provides that the first day on which cause of

4.   (2006) 9 sec 340.
5.   (2008) 13 sec 689.                                               H
    84        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 14 S.C.R.


A action arises is to be excluded. In this connection counsel relied
  on State of Himacha/ Pradesh & Anr. v. Himachal Techno
  Engineers & Anr., 6 where it is held that Section 12 of the
  Limitation Act is applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation
  Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act"), which is a statute
B providing for its own period of limitation. Counsel submitted that
  the N.I. Act is a special statute and it does not expressly bar
  the applicability of the Limitation Act. Counsel submitted that if
  this Court reaches a conclusion that the provisions of the
  Limitation Act are not applicable to the N.I. Act, it should hold
c that Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 covers this
  case. Counsel submitted in Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v.
  Dinanath Sharma 7 Section 12 of the Limitation Act is held to
  be in pari materia with Section 9 of the General Clauses Act.
  Counsel submitted that in the same judgment this Court has
  held that use of words 'from' and 'within' does not reflect any
0
  contrary intention and the first day on which the cause of action
  arises has to be excluded. Counsel submitted that in the
  circumstances this Court should hold that Saketh lays down
  correct proposition of law.

E        7. Shri Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the
    respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the provisions
    of the N.I. Act provide for a criminal offence and punishment
    and, therefore, must be strictly construed. Counsel submitted
    that it is well settled that when two different words are used in
F   the same provision or statute, they convey different meaning.
    [The Member, Board of Reverwe v. Arthur Paul Bentha/18, The
    Labour Commissioner, Madflya Pradesh v. Burhanpur Tapti
    Mills Ltd. and others9, B.R. Enterprises etc. V. State of U.P.
    & Ors. etc. 10, Kai/ash Nath Agarwal and ors. v. Pradeshiya
G
    6.   (2010) 12 sec 210.
    7.   (2000) 8 sec 649.
    8.   AIR 1956 SC 35.
    9.   AIR 1964 SC 1687.
H   10. (1999) 9 sec 700.
     ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                    85
         [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
Industrial & Investment Corporation of UP. Ltd. and another11 ,      A
DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust
v. State of Haryana and others 12]. Counsel pointed out that
Section 138(a) provides a period of 6 months from the date
on which the Cheque is drawn, as the period within which the
Cheque is to be presented to the bank. Section 138(b) provides       B
that the payee must make a demand of the amou(lt due to him
within 30 days of the receipt of information from the bank.
Section 138(c) uses the words 'within 15 days of the receipt
of notice'. Using two different words 'from' and 'of' in the same
Section at different places clarifies the intention of the           C
legislature to convey different meanings by the said words.
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). The word 'from' may be taken as implying exclusion of        D
the date in question and may well be governed by the General
Claus13s Act, 1897. However, the word 'of' is different and
needs to be interpreted to include the starting day of the
commencement of the prescribed period. It is not governed by
Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Thus, for the
purposes of Section 142(b), which prescribes that the complaint      E
is to be filed within 30 days of the date on which the cause of
action arises, the starting date on which the cause of action
arises should be included for computing the period of 30 days.
Counsel further submitted that Section 138(c) and Section
142(b) prescribe the period within which certain acts are            F
required to be done. Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act cannot
be resorted to so as to extend that period even by one day. If
the starting point is excluded, that will render the word 'within'
of Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act otiose. Counsel submitted that
the word 'within' has been held by this Court to mean 'on or         G
before'. [D<:nial Latifi and Another v. U. 0./. 13] Therefore, the

11. c2003) 4 sec 305.
12. c2003) 5 sec s22.
13. c2001i 7 sec 740.                                                H
    86       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A   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. Counsel submitted that there is no
    justification to exclude the 16th day of the 15 day period under
    Section 138(c) or the first day of the 30 days period under
9   Section 142(b) as has been wrongly decided in Saketh. This
    would amount to exclusion of the starting date of the period.
    Such exclusion has been held to be against the law in SIL Import
     USA. Counsel further submitted that the provisions of the
     Limitation Act are not applicable to the N.I. Act as held by this
C    Court in Subodh S. Salaskar. Counsel pointed out that by
    Amending Act 55 of 2002, a proviso was added to Section
     142(b) of the N.I. Act. It bestows discretion upon the court to
     accept a complaint after the period of 30 days and to condone
    the delay. This amendment signifies that prior to this
     amendment the courts had no discretion to condone the delay
D    or exclude time by resorting to Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
    The statement of objects and reasons of the Amending· Act 55
     of 2002 confirms the legal position that the N.I. Act being a
     special statute, the Limitation Act is not applicable to it. Counsel
     submitted that the judgment of this Court on the Arbitration Act
E    is not applicable to this case because Section 43 of the
     Arbitration Act specifically makes the Limitation Act applicable
     to arbitrations. Counsel submitted that in view of the above, it
     is evident that Saketh does not lay down the correct law. It is
     SIL Import USA which correctly analyses the provisions of law
F    and lays down the law. Counsel urged that the reference be
     answered in light of his submissions.

        8. It is necessary to first refer to SIL Import USA on which
  heavy reliance is placed by the respondents as it takes a view
G contrary to the view taken in Saketh. 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. The
  accused gave some post-dated Cheques in repayment thereof.
H Two of the said Cheques when preser;ited on 3/5/1996 for
    ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                  87
        [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
encashment were dishonoured with the remark "no sufficient        A
funds". The complainant sent a notice to the accused by fax
on 11 /6/1996. On the next day i.e. 12/6/1996 the complainant
also sent the same notice by registered post which was served
on the accused on 25/6/1996. On 8/8/1996 the complainant
filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance   B
of the offence was taken and process was issued. Process was
quashed by the Magistrate on the grounds urged by the
accused. The complainant moved the High Court. The High
Court set aside the Magistrate's order and restored the
complaint. That order was challenged in this Court. The only      c
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 contention
was upheld by this Court. This Court held that the notice
envisaged in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138             D
transmitted by fax would be in compliance with the legal
requirement. There was no dispute about the fact that notice
sent by fax was received by the complainant on the same date
i.e. 11/6/1996. This Court observed that as per clause (c) of
Section 138, starting point of period for making payment is the   E
date of receipt of the notice. Once it starts, the offence is
completed on failure to pay the amount within 15 days
therefrom. Cause of action would arise if the offence is
committed. Thus, it was held that since the fax was received
on 11/6/1996, the period of 15 days for making payment
expired on 26/6/1996. Since amount was not paid, offence was      F
committed and, therefore, cause of action arose from 26/6/
1996 and the period of limitation for filing complaint expired
on 26/7/1996 i.e. the date on which period of one month
expired as contemplated under Section 142(b). The complaint
filed on 8/8/1996 was, therefore, beyond the period of            G
limitation. The relevant observations of this Court could be
quoted hereunder:

    "19. The High Court's view is that the sender of the notice
    must know the date when it was received by the sendee,        H
    88       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 14 S.C.R.

A        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. The fallacy of the above reasoning is that it
         erases the starting date of the period of 15 days envisaged
         in clause (c). As per the said clause the starting date is
B        the date of "the receipt of the said notice". Once it starts,
         th13 offence is completed on the failure to pay the amount
         within 15 days therefrom. Cause of action would arise if
         the offence is committed.

         20. If a different interpretation is given the absolute interdict
c        incorporated in Section 142 of the Act that no court shall
         take cognizance of any offence unless the complaint is
         made within one month of the date on which the cause of
         action arises, would become otiose."

D        9. Undoubtedly, the view taken in SIL Import USA runs
    counter t<> the view taken in Saketh. What persuaded this Court
    in Saketh to take the view that in computing time, the rule is to
    exclude the first day and include the last can be understood if
    we have a look at the English cases which have been referred
E   to in the passage quoted therein from Haru Das Gupta.

        10. We must first refer to The Goldsmiths' Company v.
    The West Metropolitan Railway Company. 14 In that case, under"
    a special Act, a railway company was empowered to take lands
    compulsorily for the purpose of its undertaking, and the powers
F   of the company for this purpose were to cease after the
    expiration of three years from the passing of the Act. The Act
    received the Royal assent on 9/8/1899. On 9/8/1902 the railway
    company gave notice to the plaintiffs to treat for the purchase
    of lands belonging to them which were scheduled in the special
G   Act. The question was whether the notice was served on the
    plaintiffs within three years. It was held that the notice was
    served within the prescribed. ,time because the day of the


H   14. (1904)1 K.B,atp.1,5.
     ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                  89
         [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
passing of the Act i.e. 9/8/1899 had to be excluded. The            A
relevant observations of the Court may be quoted as under:

     "The true principle that governs this case is that indicated
     in the report of Lester v. Garland 15, where Sir William
     Grant broke away from the line of cases supporting the         8
     view that there was a general rule that in cases where time
     is to run from the doing of an act or the happening of an
     event the first day is always to be included in the
     computation of the time. The view expressed by Sir
     William Grant was repeated by Parke B. in Russell v.           C
     Ledsam 16, and by other judges in subsequent cases. 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."

      11. The second case referred to is Cartwright v.              D
MacCormack17 . In that case, the plaintiffs met with an accident
at 5.45 p.m. on 17/12/1959. He was run into by the defendant
driving a motor car. He issued his writ in this action claiming
damages for personal injuries. The defendant initiated third
party proceedings against the respondent insurance company,         E
alleging the company's liability to indemnify him under an
instrument called a temporary cover note admittedly issued by
the insurance company on 2/12/1959. The insurance company
inter alia contended that the policy had expired before the
accident happened. The insurance company succeeded on this          F
point. On appeal the insurance company reiterated that the
cover note issued by the insurance company contained the
expression 'fifteen days from the date of commencement of
policy'. On the same note date and time were noted as 2/12/
1959 and 11.45 a.m. It was argued that the fifteen days started
                                                                    G
at 11.45 a.m. on 2/12/1959 and expired at the same time on

15. 15 Ves. 248; 1O R.R. 68.
16. 14 M. & W. 574.
17. [1963] 1 All E.R. 11                                            H
    90        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 14 S.C.R.


A   17/12/1959. The accident occurred at 5.45 p.m. on 17/12/1959
    and, therefore, it was not covered by the insurance policy. The
    Court of Appeal treated the expression 'fifteen days from the
    commencement of the policy' as excluding the first date and
    the cover note was held to commence at midnight of that date.
B   It was observed that the policy expired fifteen days from 2/12/
    1959 and these words on the ordinary rules of construction
    exclude the first date and begin at midnight on that day,
    therefore, the policy would cover the accident which had
    occurred at 5.45 p.m. on 17/12/1959.
c       12. The third case referred to is Marren v. Dawson Bentley
  & Co. Ltd. 18 • In that case on 8/11/1954 an accident occurred
  whereby the plaintiff was injured in the course of his
  employment with the defendants. On 8/11/1957, he issued a
  writ claiming damages for the injuries which he alleged were
D caused by the defendants' negligence. The defendants
  pleaded, inter alia, that the plaintiffs cause of action, if any,
  accrued on 8/11 /1954 and the proceedings had not been
  commenced within the period of three years thereof contrary
  to Section 2( 1) of the Limitation Act, 1939. It was held that the
E day of the accident was to be:excluded from the computation
  of the period within which the action should be brought and,
  therefore, the defendants' plea must fail. While coming to this
  conclusion reliance was placed on passages from Halsbury's
  laws of England19 . It is necessary to quote those passages:
F
        "207. The general rule in cases in which a period is fixed
       ·within which a person must act or take the consequences
        is that the day of the act or event from which the period
        runs should not be counted against him. This rule is
        especially reasonable in the case in which that person
G
        is not necessarily cognisant of the act or event; and
        further in support of it there is the consideration that in
        case the period allowed was one day only, the
    18. (1961) 2 Q.B. 135.
H 19. 2"' ed.,. vol 32 p. 142.
     ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                91
         [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
     consequence of including that day would be to reduce to A
     a few hours or minutes the time within which the person
     affected should take action.

     208. In view of these considerations the general rule is
     that, as well in cases where the limitation of time is
                                                              8
     imposed by the act of a party as in those where it is
     imposed by statute, the day from which the time begins
     to run is excluded; thus. where a period is fixed within
     which a criminal prosecution or a civil action may be
     commenced, the day on which the offence is committed C
     or the cause of action arises is excluded in the
     computation."

     Reliance was also placed in this judgment on Radcliffe v.
Bartho/omew2°. In that case on June 30 an information was laid
against the appellant therein in respect of an act of cruelty D
alleged to have been committed by him on May 30. An objection
was taken on the ground that the complaint had not been made
within one calendar month after the cause of the complaint had
arisen. it was held thatthe day on which the alleged offence was
committed was to be excluded from the computation of the E
calendar month within which the complaint was to be made; that
the complaint was, therefore, made in time.

     13. The fourth case referred to is Stewart v. Chapman 21 •
In that case, an information was preferred by a police constable F
that Mr. Chapman had on 11/1/1951 driven a motor car along
a road without due care and attention contrary to Section 12 of
the Road Traffic Act, 1930. At hearing, a preliminary objection
was taken that the notice of intended prosecution had not been
served on the defendant within fourteen days of commission of
offence in accordance with Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act, G
1930, inasmuch as although the alleged offence was committed
at 7.15 a.m. on 11/1/1951, the prosecutor did not send the

20. (1892) 1 Q.B. 161.
21. (1951) 2 KB 792.                                            H
    92        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 14 S.C.R.


A   notice of intended prosecution by registered post; until 1.00 p.m.
    on 1'1/1/1951 and it was not delivered to the defendant until 25/
    1/1951 at about 8.00 a.m. This submission was rejected
    observing that in calculating the period of fourteen days within
    which the notice of an intended prosecution must be served
B   under Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the date of
    commission of the offence is to be excluded.

         14. In re. North. Ex parte Hasluck22 , the execution creditor
    obtained judgment on 19/5/1893. An order was made
    authorizing sale of the bankrupt's goods. The purchase money
C   thereunder was paid to the sheriff on July 18. The sheriff
    retained the money for fourteen days in compliance with Section
    11 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890. In August, the solicitor of the
    execution creditor paid over the said money to the execution
    creditor. Application was filed by the trustee in bankruptcy for
D   an order calling upon the execution creditor and his solicitor to
    pay over to the trustee, the proceeds of an execution against
    the bankruptcy goods on the ground that at the time of the sale
    they had notice of prior act of bankruptcy on the part of the
    bankrupt. Under Section 1 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, a debtor
E   commits an act of bankruptcy if execution against him has been
    levied by seizure of his goods, and the goods have been held
    by the sheriff for twenty one days. The time limit of twenty one
    days was an allowance of time to the debtor within which to
    redeem if he can. It was under these circumstances it became
F   necessary to ascertain whether there was, in fact, a holding by
    the sheriff for twenty one days prior to the sale. If there was,
    then neither the execution creditor, nor his solicitor could be
    heard to say that they had no notice of such possession and
    the act of bankruptcy thereby constituted. Vaughan Williams,
G   J. held that if the goods were seized on June 27 and sold on
    July 18, if June 27 is excluded, there was no holding by the
    sheriff for 21 days and consequently there was no act of
    bankruptcy and therefore execution creditor is not bound to
    hand over the money on the ground that he received it with
H   22. (1895) 2 Q.B. 264.
     ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                  93
         [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
notice of an act of bankruptcy. On appeal the same view was        A
reiterated. Rigby L.J referred to Lester v. Garland2 3 where Sir
W. Grant expressed that if there were to be a general rule, it
ought to be one of exclusion, as being more reasonable than
one to the opposite effect.
                                                                   B
      15. We shall now turn to Haru Das Gupta, where this Court
has followed the law laid down in the above judgments. In that
case, the petitioner therein was arrested and detained on 5121
1971 by order of District Magistrate passed on that day. The
order of confirmation and continuation, which has to be passed
within three months from the date of detention, was passed on
                                                                   c
5/5/1971. The question for decision was as to when the period
of three months can be said to have expired. It was contended
by the petitioner that the period of three months expired on the
midnight of 4/511971, and any confirmation and continuation of
aetention thereafter would not be valid. This Court referred to    D
sev~ral English decisions on the point apart from the above
decisions and rejected,this submission holding that the day of
commencement of detention namely 5/2/1971 has to be
excluded. Relevant observations of this could read as under:
                                                                   E
     "These decisions show that courts have drawn· a
     distinction between a term created within which an act
     may be done and a time limited for the doing of an act.
      The rule is we/I-established that where a particular time
     is given from .a certain date within which an act is to be    F
     done, the day on that date is to be excluded. (See
     Goldsmiths Company v. the West Metropolitan Railway
     Company). This rule was followed in Cartwright v.
     Maccormack where the expression "fifteen days from the
     date of commencement of the policy" in a cover note           G
     issued by an insurance company was construed as
     excluding the first date and the cover note to commence
     at midnight of that day, and also in Marren v. Damson
     Bentley & Co. Ltd. a case for compensation for injuries
23. 15 Ves. 248.                                                   H
    94        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A          received in the course of employment, where for
           purposes of computing the period of limitation the date
           of the accident, being the date of the cause of action, was
           excluded. (See also Stewart v. Chadman and In re North,
           Ex parte Wasluck). Thus, as a general rule the effect of
B          defining a period from such a day until such a day within
         · which an act is to be done is to exclude the first day and
           to include the last day. [See Halsbury's Laws of England,
           (3rd Edn.). Vol. 37, pp. 92 and 95.} There is no reason
           why the aforesaid rule of construction followed
c          consistently and for so long should not also be applied
           here."

        16. We have extensively referred to Saketh. The reasoning
  of this Court in Saketh based on the above English decisions
  and decision of this Court in Haru Das Gupta which aptly I~
D down and explain the principle that where a particular time is
  given from a certain date within which an act has to be done,
  the day of the date is to be excluded, commends itself to us
  as against the reasoning of this Court in SIL Import USA where
  there is no reference to the said decisions.
E
        17. It was submitted that in Saketh this Court has
  erroneously placed reliance on Section 12(1) and (2) of the
  Limitation Act, 1963. Section 12 (1) states that in computing
  the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the
F day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be
  excluded. In Section 12(2) the same principle is extended to
  computing period of limitation for an application for leave to
  appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment. Our attention
  was drawn to Subodh S. Salaskar wherein this Court has held
G that the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the N.I. Act. It
  is true that in Subodh S. Salaskar, this Court has held that the
  Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the N.I. Act. However
  even if the Limitation Act, 1963 is held not applicable to the
  N.I. Act, the conclusion reached in Saketh could still be reached
H with the aid of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
    ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                     95
        [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 states that in any        A
Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of the
General Clauses Act, 1897, it shall be sufficient to use the word
'from' for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days
or any other period of time and to use the word 'to' for the
purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other       B
period of time. Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 states that this Section applies to all Central
Acts made after the third day of January, 1868, and to all
Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January,
1887. This Section would, therefore, be applicable to the N.1.       c
Act.

      18. Counsel, however, submitted that using two different
words 'from' and 'of in Section 138 at different places clarifies
the intention of the legislature to convey different meanings by
the said words. He submitted that the word 'of' occurring in         D
Sections 138(c) and 142(b) of the N.I. Act is to be interpreted
differently as against the word 'from' occurring in Section 138(a)
of the N.I. Act. The word 'from' may be taken as implying
exclusion of the date in question and that may well be governed
by the General Clauses Act, 1897. However, the word 'of is           E
different and needs to be interpreted to include the starting day
of the commencement of the prescribed period. It is not
governed by Section 9 of the General Clauses Act 1897. Thus,
according to learned counsel, for the purposes of Section
142(b), which prescribes that the complaint is to be filed within    F
30 days of the date on which the cause of action, arises, the
starting date on which the cause of action arises should be
included for computing the period of 30 days ..

      19. We are not impressed by his submission. In this            G
connection, we may refer to Tarun Prasad Chatterjee. Though,
this case relates to the provisions of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (for short 'the RP Act, 1951 '), the principle
laid down therein would have a bearing on the present case.
What is important to bear in mind is that the Limitation Act is
                                                                     H
    96      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 14 S.C.R.

A  not applicable to it. In that case the short question involved was
  whether in computing the period of limitation as provided in
   Section 81(1) of the RP Act, 1951, the date of election of the
   returned candidate should be excluded or not. The appellant
   was declared elected on 28/11/1998. On 12/1/1999, the
B respondent filed an election petition under Section 81 (1) of the
   RP Act, 1951 challenging the election of the appellant. The
   appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
   CPC read with Section 81 of the RP Act, 1951 praying that the
   elect.ion petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold as
C not maintainable as the same had not been filed within 45 days
   from the date of election of the returned candidate. While
   dealing with this issue, this Court referred to Section 67-A of
   the RP Act, 1951 which states that for the purpose of the RP
  ·Act, 1951 the date on which a candidate is declared by the
   returning officer under Section 53 or Section 66 to be elected
D shall be the date of election of the candidate. As stated earlier,
   the appellant was declared elected as per this provision by the
   returning officer on 28/1111998. Section 81 of the RP Act, 1951
   which relates to presentation of petition reads thus:

E        "B·t. Presentation of petitiQns. - (1) An election petition
         calling in question any election may be presented on
         one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1)
         of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High Courl by any
         candidate at such election or any elector within forly-five
F        days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the
         re.turned candidate or if there are more than, one returned
         candidate at the election and dates of their election are
         different, the later of those two dates.

         Explanation.-ln this sub-section, 'elector' means a
G
         person who was entitled to vote at the election to which
         the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such
         election or not.

               *
H
    ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                     97
        [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.)

    (3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as            A
    many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned
    in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by
    the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy
    of the petition."
                                                                      B
       Before analyzing this provision, this Court made it clear
that it was an accepted position that the Limitation Act had no
application to the RP Act, 1951. This Court then referred to sub-
clause (1) of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which
states that it shall be sufficient for the purpose of excluding the   C
first in a series of days or any other period of time to use the
words 'from' and for the purpose of including last in a series of
days or any other period of time to use the word 'to'. This Court
observed that Section 9 gives statutory recognition to the well
established principle applicable to the construction of statute
that ordinarily in computing the period of time prescribed, the       D
rule observed is to exclude the first and include the last day.
This Court quoted the relevant provisions of Halsbury's Laws
of England, 37th Edn., Vol.3, p. 92. We deem it appropriate to
quote the same.
                                                                      E
     "Days included or excluded - When a period of time
     running from a given day or even to another day or event
     is prescribed by law or fixed as contract, and the question
     arises whether the computation is to be made inclusively
     or exclusively of the first-mentioned or of the last-            F
     mentioned day, regard must be had to the context and
     to the purposes for which the computation has to be
     made. Where there is room for doubt, the enactment or
     instrument ought to be so construed as to effectuate and
     not to defeat the intention of Parliament or of the parties,     G
     as the case may be. Expressions such as 'from such a
     day' or 'until such a day' are equivocal, since they do not
     make it clear whether the inclusion or the exclusion of the
     day named may be intended. As a general rule, however,
     the effect of defining a period in such a manner is to
                                                                      H
    9S:       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A         exclude the first day and to include the last day."

        The further observations made by this Court are pertinent
    and need to be quoted:

          "12. Section 9 says that in any Central Act or regulation
B         made after the commencement of the General Clauses
          Act, 1897, it shall be sufficient for the purpose of
          excluding the first in a series of days or any other period
          of time, to use the word "from", and, for the purpose of
          including the last in a series of days or any period of time,
c         to use the word "to". The principle is that when a period
          is delimited by statute or rule, which has both a beginning
          and an end and the word "from" is used indicating the
          beginning, the opening day is to be excluded and if the
          last day is to be included the word "to" is to be used. In
D         order to exclude the first day of the period, the crucial
          thing to be noted is whether the period of limitation is
          delimited by a series of days or by any fixed period. This
          is intended to obviate the difficulties or inconvenience
          that may be caused to some parties. For instance, if a
E         policy of insurance has to be good for one day from 1st
          January, it mighj be valid only for a few hours after its
          execution and the party or the beneficiary in the
          insurance policy would not get reasonable time to lay
          claim, unless 1st January is excluded from the period of
F         computation."

        It was argued in that case that the language used in
  Section 81(1) that "within forty-five days ,from, but not earlier
  than the date of election of the returned candidate" expresses
  a different intention and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act
G has no application. While rejecting this submission, this Court
  observed that:

          "We do not find any force in this contention. In order to
          apply Section 9, the first condition to be fulfilled is
                                       '
H         whether a prescribed periocj is fixed "from" a particular
     ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                       99
         [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
     When the period is marked by terminus a quo and                    A
     terminus ad quem, the canon of interpretation envisaged
     in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 require to
     exclude the first day. The words "from" and "within" used
     in Section 81(1) of the RP Act, 1951 do not express any
     contrary intention."                                               B

      This Court concluded that a conjoint reading of Section
81 (1) of the RP Act, 1951 and Section 9 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 leads to the conclusion that the first day of
the period of limitation is required to be excluded for the             C
convenience of the parties. This Court observed that if the
declaration of the result is done late in the night, the candidate
or elector would hardly get any time for presentation of election
petition. Law comes to the rescue of such parties to give full
forty-five days period for filing the election petition. In the facts
before it since the date of election of the returned candidate          D
was 28/1111998, the election petition filed on 12/1 /1999 on
exclusion of the first day from computing the period of limitation,
was held to be in time.

     20. As the Limitation Act is held to be not applicable to          E
N.I. Act, drawing parallel from Tarun Prasad Chatterjee where
the Limitation Act was held not applicable, we are of the opinion
that with the aid of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
it can be safely conclu.ded in the present case that while
calculating the period of one month which is prescribed under           F
Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the period has to be reckoned
by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose. It is
not possible to agree with the counsel for the respondents that
the use of the two different words 'from' and 'of in Section 138
at different places indicates the intention of the legislature to       G
convey different meanings by the said words.

    21. In this connection we may also usefully refer to the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in
Vasantlal Ranchhoddas Patel & Ors. v. Union of India &
                                                                        H
    100      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A   Ors. 24 which is approved by this Court in Gopaldas Udhavdas
    Ahuja and another v. Union of India and ofhers25, though in
    different context. In that case the premises of the appellants
    were searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate.
    Several packets containing diamonds were seized. The
B   appellants made an application, for return of the diamonds, to
    the learned Magistrate, which was rejected. Similar prayer made
    to the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court was also
    rejected. An appeal was carried by the appellants to the
    Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It was pointed out
c   that under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, no order
    confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person
    shall be made unless the owner of the goods or such person
    is given a notice in writing with the prior approval of the officer
    of customs not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner
    of Police, informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed
0
    to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty. Under Section
    110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 a proper officer, who has
    reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation may
    seize such goods. Under sub-Section(2) of Section 110 of the
    Customs Act, 1962, where any goods are seized under sub-
E   Section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under
    clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of
    the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from
    whose possession they were seized. Under proviso to Section
    110, sub-section (2), however, the Collector could extend the
F   period of six months on sufficient cause being shown. It was
    argued that the Customs Officers had seized the goods within
    the meaning of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 4191
    1964. The notice contemplated under Section 124(a) was given
    after 3/3/1965, that is after the period of six months had expired.
G   As per Section 110(2), notice contemplated under Section
    124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 had to be given within six
    months of the seizure of the goods, and, therefore, notice issued

    24. AIR 1967 Bombay 138.
H   2s. (2004) 7 sec 33.
    ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.              101
        [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
after the expiry of six months was bad in law and, hence, the A
Collector of Customs was not competent to extend the period
of six months under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section
110 as he had done. Therefore, no order confiscating the goods
or imposing penalty could have been made and the goods had
to be returned to the appellants. It was argued that Section 9 B
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 has no application because
the words 'from' and 'to' found in Section 9 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 are not used in sub-Section 2 of Section
110 of the Customs Act, 1962. This submission was rejected
and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was held         c
applicable. Speaking for the Bench Chainani, C.J. observed
as under:

    "......... The principle underlying section 9 has been
    applied even in the cases of judicial orders passed by
    Courts, even though in terms the section is not             D
    applicable, See. Ramchandra Govind v. Laxman
    Savleram, AIR 1938 Bom 447, Dharamraj v Addi.
    Deputy Commr., Ako/a, AIR 1957 Bom 154, Puranchand
    v. Mohd Din. AIR 1935 Lah 291, Marakanda Sahu v. Lal
    Sadananda, AIR 1952 Orissa 279, and Liquidator Union        E
   ·Bank, Mal, v. Padmanabha Menon, (1954) 2 Mad LJ
    44. The material words in sub-s. (2) of section 11 O are
    "within six months of fhe seizure of the goods". In such
    provisions the word "of' has been held to be equivalent
    to "from": see Willims v. Burgess and Walcot, (1840) 12     F
    Ad and El 635. In that qase section 1 of the relevant
    statute enacted that warrants of attorney shall be filed
    "within twenty-one days after the execution. Section 2
    enacted that unless they were "filed as aforesaid within
    the said space of twenty-one days from the execution,       G
    "they and the judgment thereon shall be void subject to
    the conditions specified in t."1e section. The warrant of
    attorney was executed on 9th December, 1839 and it was
    filed, and judgment entered up on the 30th December. It
    was held that in computing the period of 21 days the day    H
    1 O:i!       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 14 S.C.R.


A            of execution must be excluded, Reliance was placed on
             Ex parte Fallon, (1793) 5 Term Rep 283 in which the word
             used was "of' and not "from". It was observed that "of',
             "from" and '"after" really meant the same thing and that
             no distinction could be suggested from the nature of the
B            two provisions. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 3, 1953
             Edition in Note (5) under the word "of", it' has been
             observed that "of' is sometimes the equivalent of "after"
             e.g., in the expression "within 21 days of the execution".
             The principle underlying section 9 of the General
             Clauses Act cannot therefore, be held to be inapplicable,
c            merely because the word used in sub-section (2) of
             section 110 is "of' and not "from".

        Relevant extracts from Halsbury's laws of England26 were
    quoted. They read as under:
D
             "The general rule in cases in which a period is fixed within
             which a person must act or take the consequences is that
             the day of the act or event from which the period runs
             should not be counted against him.
E            This general rule applies irrespective of whether the
             limitation of time is imposed by the act of a party or by
             statute; thus, where a period is fixed within which a criminal
             prosecution or a civil action may be commenced, the day
             on which the offence is committed or the cause of action
F            arises is excluded in the computation."

          In the circumstances, it was held that the day on which the
    goods were seized has to be excluded in computing the period
    of limitation contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 110
G   and therefore the notice was issued within the period of
    limitation. It is pertinent to note that under Section 110 (2) of
    the Customs Act, notice had to be given within six months of
    the seizure of the goods. Similarly, under Section 142(b) of the

H   26. 3rd Edn, Vol. 37 p. 95.
    ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD.                    103
        [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
N.I. Act, the complaint has to be made within one month of the        A
date of which cause of action arose. The view taken in
Vasant/al Ranchhoddas Patel meets with our approval.

      22. In view of the above, it is not possible to hold that the
word 'of occurring in Section 138(c) and 142(b) of the N.I. Act
                                                                      8
is to be interpreted differently as against the word 'from'
occurring in Section 138(a) of the N.I. Act; and that for the
purposes of Section 142(b), which prescribes that the complaint
is to be filed within 30 days of the date on which the cause of
action arises, the starting day on which the cause of action
arises should be included for computing the period of 30 days.        C
As held in Ex parte Fallon 27 the words 'of', 'from' and 'after'
may, in a given case, mean really the same thing. As stated in
Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 3 1953 Edition, Note (5), the
word 'of' is sometimes equivalent of 'after'.
                                                                      D
      23. Reliance placed on Danial Latifi is totally misplaced.
In that case the Court was concerned with Section 3(1 )(a) of
the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Section 3(1 )(a) provides that a divorced woman shall be
entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to        E
be made and paid to her within the lddat period by her former
husband. This provision is entirely different from Section 142(b)
of the N.I. Act, which provides that the complaint is to be made
'within one month of the date on which the cause of action
arises'. (emphasis supplied).                                         F

      24. We may, at this stage, note that learned counsel for
the appellant relied on State of Himacha/ Pradesh where, while
considering the question of computation of three months'
limitation period and further 30 days within which the challenge
to the award is to be filed, as provided in Section 34(3) and         G
proviso thereto of the Arbitration Act, this Court held that having
regard to Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section
9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, day from which such period

27. (1793) 5 Term Rep 283.                                            H


                                       /
    104      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A is to be reckoned is to be excluded for calculating limitation. It
  was pointed out by counsel for the respondents that Section
  43 of the Arbitration Act makes the Limitation Act, 1963
  applicable to the Arbitration Act whereas it is held to be not
  applicable to the N.I. Act and, therefore, this judgment would
B not be applicable to the present case. We have noted that in
  this case reliance is not merely placed on Section 12(1) of the
  Limitation Act. Reliance is also placed on Section 9 of the
  Gem~ral Clauses Act. However, since, in the instant case we
  have reached a conclusion on the basis of Section 9 of the
c General Clauses Act, 1897 and on the basis of a long line of
  Engli.sh decisions 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, it is not necessary to discuss whether
  State of Himachal Pradesh is applicable to this case or not
  because Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act is relied upon
0
  therein.

       25. Having considered the question of law involved in this
  case in proper perspective, in light of relevant judgments, we
  are of the opinion that Saketh lays down the correct proposition
E of law. We hold that for the purpose of calculating the period
  of one month, which is prescribed under Section 142(b) of the
  N.I. Act, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date
  on which the cause of action arose. We hold that SIL lmporl
  USA does not lay down the correct law. Needless to say that
F any decision of this Court which takes a view contrary to the
  view taken in Saketh by this Court, which is confirmed by us,
  do not lay down the correct law on the question involved in this
  reference. The reference is answered accordingly.

    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                          Reference answered.