R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) FOR resolving the judicial dissent expressed by two Hon'ble judges of this Court, the matter has been referred to us for resolving the controversy by an authoritative pronouncement. The conflicting views are found in the judgments of Justice A. B. Murgod delivered in criminal revision petition in D. Puttaswamy v N. Ramakrishna and of Justice B. N. Mallikarjuna in G. Ekantappa v State of Karnataka and Another. The controversy relates to the interpretation of the provisions of Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called the Act' ). The point for consideration is to determine the period of limitation prescribed under Section 142 for filing the emplaint for an offence under Section 138 of the said Act.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to have a reference to the provisions of the aforesaid two sections. Section 138 prescribes:"dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. , of funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless. (A) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (B) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (C) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, 'debt or other liability' means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Section 142 prescribes:"cognizance of offences. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 ). _ (a) no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138; (c) no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under Section 138".

( 3 ) WHILE deciding the case of D. Puttaswamy, supra, Murgod, j. , held:"it is open to the holder of the cheque to make repeated presentations for encashment within a period of six months from the date on which the cheque is drawn or within the period of validity of the cheque whichever is earlier. But, when once a notice of demand is issued after the dishonour of the cheque and the same is served on the drawer the cause of action to prosecute him begins to run and there is no stopping the same. If the complainant chooses to prosecute the drawer of the cheque for the alleged offence under section 138 of the Act, he has to file the complaint before the competent Magi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document