DUSHYANT DANG Vs. JAIRAM DAS VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is against the order dated 11/08/2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.75/2017 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. By such order the learned court below has affirmed the order passed by the JMFC dated 24/03/2017 in Complaint Case No.2025/2016.

(2.) Facts as would reflect from the order of revisional court and documents attached with this petition is that complainant/petitioner herein has filed a complaint before JMFC, Durg under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 after dishonour of the cheque given by the respondent. After registration of the complaint, a preliminary objection was preferred by the accused on the ground that alleged two cheques which were issued in his favour dated 1/11/2015 and 2/11/2015 respectively were first dishonoured on 2/01/2016 by the bank. Against such dishonour first statutory notice was served on 15/01/2016 claiming the amount of dishonour of cheques. Admitedly after first dishonour and statutory notice no complaint was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the complainant. It was alleged in such objection that again the cheques were deposited in the bank in the month of February, 2016 which were dishonoured on 11/02/2016 and second notice for dishonor of the cheque was served on 18/02/2016 which was replied by the accused on 03/03/2016. Thereafter the complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 11/03/2016 before the JMFC. It was therefore contended that since after presentation of the cheque for the first time in the month of January, 2016 and after dishonour thereof, since no complaint was preferred within stipulated statutory period i.e. after service of first notice, subsequent complaint on the basis of second dishonour and notice there off is not tenable as the complaint would be barred by time as the cause of action would accrue and start running after first dishonour and notice thereoff.

(3.) Said objection by the accused was allowed and it was held that complaint on the basis of second dishonor of cheque and notice thereof cannot be sustained when no action has been taken on the basis of the first dishonour cheque and statutory notice thereof within the statutory period.