MADAN MOHAN Vs. K M MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Madan Mohan, the petitioner herein, hasassailed the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 6/12/1991 on the ground that the Magistrate fell in grave error in observing that thecheque issued by the drawer cannot be presented more than once in order toattract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Acjt (hereinafter called as the "Act").

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, the brieffacts are that the petitioner along with his son is the owner of the premisessituated in 0-4, Swastik Bhawan, Ranjit Nagar, Commeral Complex, nearSatyam Cinema, New Delhi-8. The respondents took this commercialpremises of the petitioner on tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 137.00persquare feet made of Rs. 12.00. The rent for structure of the premises ofRe. l.00 as the rental for the fittings and fixtures therein. The tenancy wasmade for 33 months. The rent agreed to be paid every month came toRs.3,744.00andRs.624.00. The respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 7,488.00as an initial payment and thereafter the payment became irregular even thecheque when presented was dishonoured with the remarks "refer to drawer". It is further the case of the petitioner that from February to September, 1991,the rent became due and payable to the tune of Rs. 39,000.00 out of which therespondent paid on different dates a sum of Rs. 19.656.00 leaving a balancedue and payable. As part discharge of the above liability, the respondentissued a cheque on 3/07/1991 for a sum of Rs. 19,344.00drawn onPunjab National Bank, Tropical Building, New Delhi. The cheque wasreturned unpaid by the Banker with the remarks "Refer to drawer" on 1 7/07/1991. The petitioner approached the respondent and informed himabout the dishonouring of the cheque and demanded payment and on requestof the respondent to re-present the cheque, the petitioner did it and again thecheque was dishonoured and the reason given by the bank was "insufficientfunds". It is in this background a notice was given and thereafter complaintwas filed under Section 138 of the Act read with. Section 420 I.P.C.

(3.) The learned Magistrate took the view that so far as Section 420 Indian Penal Code is concerned, since there was no inducement, so the provisions ofSection 420 J.P.C. w(re not attracted. As regard the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, it observed that the same does not contemplate morethan one presentation and repeated cause of action and therefore dismissedthe complaint.