R.P. GOYANGA Vs. P.M.S. TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the orders passed by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal M.P. No. 2154 of 2000 in C.C. No. 7725 of 1996 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein to drop the proceedings against him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) It may not be necessary for me to advert to the facts of the case in detail, suffice it to say that the cheque issued by the petitioner herein for an existing liability to the complainant/respondent had been dishonoured on presentation. After complying with the all the formalities contemplated in the Negotiable Instruments Act, the prosecution, for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act had been launched before the lower court. The complainant/respondent is said to have issued a notice on 16.8.1996, a copy of which has been placed before the court along with the cover in which the said notice had been sent and the same had been received by the accused/petitioner. However, the accused/petitioner received yet another notice dated 22.10.1996 calling upon him to pay the said amount in respect of the same cheque.

(3.) In view of the decision held in the case of Sadanandan Bhadran v. Mahadevan Sunil Kumar , the cause of action arises the moment the first notice is received by the accused, and if the amount is not paid to the complainant within 15 days, thereafter. Therefore, issuing second notice and launching the prosecution is illegal, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner.