PRAVAKAR MOHANTY Vs. PRAHALLAD PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner (accused) challenging orders dated 18.2.2009 and 24.3.2009 passed in 1.C.C. No.315 of 2008, whereby the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur has been pleased to condone the delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act and had thereafter taken cognizance of an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act.

(2.) The essential contention of Sri A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect is that, whereas the petitioner has issued a cheque on 31.01.2008 in favour of the Complainant-Opposite Party, the complainant had presented the cheque for encashment on the self-same date i.e., 31.01.2008 and received intimation of dishonour from the bank on 08.02.2008. It is further submitted that the complainant sent an advocate notice on 25.2.2008 which was returned to the sender with an endorsement "addressee always absent".

(3.) In the light of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadanandan Bhadran-V- Madhavan Sunil Kumar, (1998) 6 SCC 514 had came to hold that, the cause of action to file a complaint on non-payment despite issue of notice arise only once, and another cause of action would not arise on the repeated dishonour cheque on re-presentation.