AJUDIYA SUGAR MILLS Vs. ALCOBEX METALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise from the order dated 19/10/2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur rejecting the petitioners application for dropping the proceedings against them for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the instant petitions are that the respondent namely M/s. Alcobex Metals Ltd. supplied goods to the petitioner company namely M/s. Ajudiya Sugar Mills for which he gave seven different cheques of Rs. one Lac each of various dates. The cheques were presented before the Vijya Bank, Branch New Delhi. But the same were returned to the complainant with the endorsement that the same could not be honoured because of the insufficiency of the funds. It is averred that the complainant served notice on the petitioners. According to the complainant the second petitioner namely Dharmendra Jam contacted the Head Office of the complainants company at Jodhpur and assured that since there is some financial crunch with the company, hence payment could not be made and, therefore, a request was made that the cheque may again be presented before the Bank. The complainant again presented the cheques before the Bank, which was again dishonoured. After sta-tutory notice being served, the complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was contended before the learned Magistrate that it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of 30 days from the date of cause of action i.e. within 30 days, on expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the first statutory notice as there could not be more than one cause of action in respect of single cheque. The learned Magistrate rejected the contention by the impugned order.

(3.) Thus, the core question which arises for consideration is:whether the payee or holder of the cheque can initiate prosecution for an offence made under Section 138 of the Act for its dishonour for the second time, if he had not initiated such presentation on the earlier cause of action? The relevant dates in all the four petitions which have bearing on the controversy are given in a tabular form as follows :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_139_CRIMES3_2004Html1.htm</FRM>