MANJU RASTOGI Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEANED counsel for the petitioner cites a judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court reported as M/s AS. Traders v. Rita Sharma, 1997 (2) RCR 736 : [vol. 2 DCTC 546] wherein it was held that if a cheque is repeatedly dishonoured within its validity period of six months, complaint can be filed on the basis of cause of action on last dishonour within time and the holder of the cheque is not debarred from invoking the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has tried to distinguish this authority by submitting that once on the basis of dishonour of the cheque the holder of the cheque had issued a notice, in that eventuality the cause of action had arisen in favour of the holder the cheque and it cannot be stopped by the repeated representation of the cheques.

(3.) THE effort made by the learned counsel for the respondent in order to distinguish the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not acceptable to this Court. The authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is totally in consonance with the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court. Crl. Rev. No. 392 of 1996, reported as Lakshmanan v. Sivarama Krishnan, 1995 (2) R. C. R. 23 : [vol. 2 DCTC 184] By passing the impugned order, the leaned Magistrate has committed a patent illegality which has to be interfered in the present petition.