IMPORTANT POINT
Payee can go on presenting the cheque any number of times during, period of its validity but once he gives notice under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act he forfeits right to again present the cheque and complaint could be filed within one month of cause of action.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Gupta, J. - This order will govern the disposal of Crl.M.(M) Nos. 3593,4011,3591 and 4042/2000 wherein identical issue arise for decision.

2. S.K. Gupta, respondent No.1 is the complainant in Crl. M.(M)3593/2000. His son Rajiv Gupta, respondent No.1 is the complainant in Crl.M.(M) No. 4011/2000. Radha Rani, respondent No.1 is the complainant in Crl.M. (M) 3591/2000 - while Ritu Gupta, respondent No.1 in Crl.M. (M) 4042/2000. Radha Rani is the wife while Ritu Gupta is the daughter-in-law of said S.K. Gupta. Dr. Bharat Ram who has been impleaded as accused No.2 in four complaints, is the petitioner in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations made in four complaints barring cheque numbers are by and large identical.

3. Submission advanced by Ms. Seem 51- Gulati for petitioner was that the complaints are barred by time as they were filed much beyond the period of one month after service of demand notice(s) dated 8th December, 1997 on accused No. 1 company. In support of the submission, reliance was placed on the decision in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar1. On the other hand, contention advanced by Sh. Deepak Gandhi for respondent No.1 complainant was that neither the registered envelopes Containing notices dated 8th December, 1997 nor ADs thereof were received back undelivered by respondent No.1 and accused No.1 company having denied receipt of said notices in its reply, dated 5th May, 1998, the complaints based on another demand notices dated 21st April, 1998 are within limitation. My attention was drawn particularly to paras 1, 2 and 19 of said reply dated 5th May, 1998. To appreciate the respective submissions advanced, it will be profitable to refer to the material allegations made in the complaints as also the replies to the petitions. As noticed above, barring cheque numbers the allegations made in four complaints are by and large similar. Complaint filed by S.K. Gupta is treated as lead case for referring to the averments made in the complaints. This complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that M/s. DCM Financial Services Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act; accused Nos. 2 to 5 are its Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary and Chief Executive respectively and all of them are jointly and severally responsible for day-to-day functioning of the accused No.1 company. Under Bill Rediscounting Scheme floated by accused No.1, the complainant invested certain amounts which were acknowledged by the company in its two letters both dated 20th August, 1997. Alongwith these letters, the company also enclosed post dated cheques bearing Nos. 022034 dated 10th November, 1997 for Rs. 2,18,148/ - and 022028 dated 10th November, 1997 for Rs. 3,27,221/-drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Janpath Branch, New Delhi favouring the complainant. Subsequently, complainant received, letter from accused No.1 intimating that there had been change in authorised Signatory and, therefore, two cheques be returned to enable it to issue fresh cheques in lieu thereof. Complainant returned the said cheques and two new cheques bearing Nos. 023395 for B.s. 3,27,221/- and 023396 for Rs. 2,18,148/-, both dated 10th November, 1997 were given to him. On 23rd October, 1997 the complainant received a letter from the company not to present these two cheques. Complainant sent a .letter dated 8th November. 1997 to the company informing that as the said letter did not give any reason or justification for not presenting the cheques, he will be presenting them on due dates. However this letter was received back with report of 'refusal' on 10th November, 1997. Complainant presented both the said cheques on 25th November, 1997 for payment through Central Bank of India. Gulmohar Park and on 28th November, 1997 they were received back unpaid alongwith the memo dated 27th November, 1997 of the complainant's banker enclosing therewith the memo dated 26th November. 1997 issued by accused's banker - Punjab & Sind Bank. Janp