KUMARESAN Vs. AMEERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the conflicting views on interpretation of S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'), Thulasidas, J. has referred this case to a Division Bench. Balakrishnan, J. has held in Mahadevan Sunil Kumar v. Bhadran ( 1991 (1) KLT 651 ) that "it is clear that cause of action for filing the complaint may arise on several occasions and the payee or holder in due course is entitled to present the cheque at any time within a period of six months from the date on which it was drawn and for filing the complaint he should have served notice of such dishonour to the drawer; the payee or holder in due course can make a second presentation of the cheque and if other conditions are fulfilled, he can launch a complaint on the basis of the second dishonour of the cheque as the cheque would remain valid for a period of six months". Padmanabhan, J. without noticing the decision in Mahadevan Sunil Kumar's case took contrary view in his order dated 18-2-1991 (Crl. R.P. No. 480/90).

(2.) Facts of this case are the following: Respondent herein filed a complaint before a Judicial Magistrate of First Class alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence under S.138 of the Act (respondent will be referred to as the complainant hereinafter). He stated in the complaint that a cheque drawn on Vijaya Bank for Rs.10,000/- was issued by the petitioner on 4-11-1989 in favour of the complainant; and on 6-11-1989 the cheque was returned dishonoured by the drawee bank for the ground "refer to the drawer". Notice issued by the complainant was received by the petitioner on 23-11-89. But no payment was made pursuant to the said notice. Complainant again presented the said cheque on 15-1-90 before the drawee bank and was again dishonoured. A fresh notice was issued to the petitioner which he received on 13-2-90. As no payment was made by the petitioner thereafter top, the complaint was filed on 12-3-90. Learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and issued process to the petitioner. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the petitioner to quash the complaint.

(3.) The only ground urged by the petitioner is that respondent cannot have a second cause of action on the same cheque when once he had failed to institute a complaint on the strength of the first cause of action.