Back
Sadanandan Bhadran – Appellant
Versus
Madhavan Sunilkumar – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment holds that a cheque can be presented any number of times during its validity, but the cause of action under Section 142(c) arises only once (for the purpose of filing a complaint within one month from the end of the 15-day notice period) (!) (!) (!) - A complaint under Section 138 must be filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 (!) (!) - On each presentation and dishonour, a fresh right accrues in the payee, but not a fresh cause of action; prosecution can be pursued on the last or appropriate cause of action after notice is given (!) (!) - There can be only one offence for the dishonour of a cheque; subsequent dishonours do not create new offences but may enable fresh rights to pursue action under the statutory framework (!) - The Kerala High Court’s Kumaresan line was overruled; there can be multiple presentations, but the cause of action is limited as described above (!) (!) - The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not avail the right arising under Section 142(b) after choosing to rely on Section 138(b) previously (!)
Judgment
M.K. Mukherjee, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 26, 1992 rendered by a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1373 of 1991. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under.
2. On January 4, 1991, the respondent handed over a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant in liquidation of the loan he obtained from the latter. The cheque was presented in the bank for encashment on January 5, 1991 but was returned for want of sufficient funds in the account of the respondent. The appellant then sent a lawyer’s notice to the respondent on January 15, 1991 calling upon him to pay the aforesaid amount. On receipt of the notice the respondent approached the appellant and requested for some time to pay the amount. In view of the assurance so given the appellant did not initiate any further proceeding but as the respondent did not keep his promise he presented the cheque in the bank once again on May 4, 1991. This time also the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Another notice dated May 9, 1991 was then served upon the respondent demanding payment of the amount but he failed to make the p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
