NANJUNDAPPA Vs. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-accused had issued a cheque Ex. P-1 for Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the discharge of debt liability in favour of the complainant. Ex. P-1 on presentation was dishonoured. Statutory notice is issued and a private complaint filed.

(2.) Per contra, the accused denies existence of any debt liability. It is submitted that the accused had handed over a signed blank cheque to his wife which was given to the daughter of the accused and from whom the cheque is taken by the complainant and after fabrication; a false complaint is filed. The accused has produced an endorsement issued by his Banker marked at Ext. D-10 to show that the cheque in the first instance was presented on 3.6.1998 and it was dishonoured on the ground "account closed by the drawer". The complainant represented the cheque on 25.6.1998 through Syndicate Bank for collection, the cheque is dishonoured again on the ground that "account closed".

(3.) The Counsel Mr. C.V. Nagesh relying on the decision of Supreme Court in N.E.P.C. Micon Limited and Ors. v. Magma Leasing Limited, 1999 CrLJ 2883 , argued that the expression "account closed" means insufficiency of funds. Therefore, there is no bar for the complainant to make successive presentations. The cause of action for filing complaint would arise only when the legal notice preceding the dishonour is issued. In the instant case it is argued that the legal notice issued after the second presentation is a valid notice and that the complaint is within the limitation.