RAM PRATAP Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant misc. petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Chand Vijay Kumar vs. Yashpal Singh & Am,, reported in 2005 Cr LR (SC) 476, wherein the Apex Court held that once a notice under clause (b) of Sec. 138 of the Act is "received" by the drawer of the cheque, the payee or holder of the cheque forfeits his right to again present the cheque as cause of action has accrued when there was failure to pay the amount within the prescribed period and the period of limitation starts to run which cannot be stopped on any account.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner on failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice dated 13.8.2002, the cause of action arose to the pe titioner to file the complaint within statutory period of limitation, which the complainant did not file and after more than four months presented the cheque again to the Bank and on dishonouring of the cheque, gave second notice dated 8.1.2003 and thereafter filed the complaint, therefore, the complaint is barred by period of limitation and is bad in law.