D MURALI KRISHNA Vs. CH SIVA BRAHMACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st respondent filed C.C. No. 13 of 2001 against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampalle, Hyderabad. In that case petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.6498 of 2002 seeking his discharge from that case on the ground that he, in reply to the statutory notice got issued by the 1st respondent, made a request to the 1st respondent to represent the cheque into the bank since he arranged sufficient funds for honouring the cheque which was dishonoured earlier and that 1st respondent without so representing the cheque, unnecessarily filed the complaint against him, solely with a view to harass and in convenience him. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition and that order of dismissal was confirmed by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by the order impugned in this petition.

(2.) The point for consideration is whether the payee of the dishonoured cheque is bound to represent the cheque for payment into the bank, when the drawer, in reply to the statutory notice got issued by him demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, instead of sending the amount asks him to represent the same into the bank on the ground that he had made arrangement for honour of the cheque on its representation.

(3.) In my considered opinion the answer to the above question should be an emphatic 'No'