such cases, such-like complaint is likely to fail for no fault of the complainant, but for the failure/laches on the part of the postal department. The purpose of the Act is, therefore, likely to be frustrated, in such circumstances, which could never possibly have been intended by the makers thereof. The question which thus naturally arises for consideration is whether the literal and mechanical way of construing Clause (c) of Section 138 of the relevant Act would be justified in law, in such circumstances. The knowledge of the sender of the notice about the date of receipt of the same being an essential requirement of fair-play and natural justice, the expression "within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice", used in the aforesaid provision, should clearly mean the date when the sender acquires the knowledge about the date of the receipt of the notice given by him under Clause (b) of the relevant provision. If a person is given a right to resort to a remedy within a prescribed time, limitation should not be computed from a date earlier than that on which the party aggrieved actually knew about the date of accrual of the cause of action for making a complaint before the competent court for seeking redress therefore, or else, it might be an absurd and unreasonable application of law. On the analogy of the decision of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO MANU/SC/0300/1981 : [1981]131ITR597(SC) , we must, therefore, eschew literalness in the interpretation of Clause (c) of Section 138 of the Act and "try to arrive at an interpretation which avoids such absurdity and mischief and makes the provision rational and sensible, unless of course, our hands are tied and we cannot find any escape from the tyranny of literal interpretation." It is now a well-settled rule of construction that where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result, which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the court may modify the language used by the Legislature, or even "do some violence" to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction (vide Luke v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1963] AC 557 ; [1964] 54 ITR 692 (HL)). The court may also in such a case read into the statutory provision a condition which, though not expressed, is implicit as constituting the basic assumption underlying the statutory provision. It, therefore, seems to me that having regard to this well recognized rule of interpretation, a fair and reasonable construction of Clause (c) of Section 138 of the Act should be read into it so that the expression therein "within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice" should be made to mean within 15 days from the date of knowledge of the sender about the receipt of the notice so that suchlike complaint may not fail for default on the part of the postal department, without any fault on the part of the complainant. On such construction, the cause of action for such complaint, so far as the complainant is concerned, would accrue on the failure of the drawer to make payment within fifteen days from the date of knowledge of the
