SHORT NOTE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, J.
Dhimant Mehta —Appellant
versus
M/s. Ramdil Resorts P. Ltd. & Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.448 of 1999
Decided on 7.9.2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint for offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act on basis of second default and second demand notice would be maintainable.

Headnote:(i) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 and 142 — Prosecution for dishonour of cheque — On receiving cheque dishonoured, complainant issued demand notice dated 14th May, 1993 — Accused requested complainant to represent the cheques and accordingly cheques were represented but were dishonoured again — Complainant issued demand notice dated 28th June, 1993 and filed complaint on basis of second notice — Whether complaint on basis of second notice was maintainable ? Yes.

       Held: The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to overrule the decision in the case of Sadanandan Bhadran’s case (supra) and observed that the complaint filed on the basis of second default would also be maintainable.

       (ii) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 258 — Prosecution for dishonour of cheque on basis of second presentation of cheque and issuance of demand notice second time — During pendency of trial, Magistrate passed order of dropping proceedings and acquitted accused — Appeal — Being complaint case, provisions of section 258 CrPC were not applicable — Impugned order was liable to be set aside and matter remanded. (Paras 15 & 16)

       Result: Appeal allowed accordingly.