Thomas. J. –In view of the confluting views on interpretation of section 138 of the negotitable Instuments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”), Thulaasidas. J. has referred this casssse to adivision bench . Balakrishan, J. has held in Mahadevan sunil kumar v. Bhadran1 that “it is clear that cause of action for filing the complanint may arise on servel occasions and the payee or holder in due course is entiled to present the cheque at any time within a period of six months from the data on whioch it was drawen an for filing complaint he should have served notice of such dishounest to the drawer, the payee or holder in due course can make a second presentation of the chequee and if other comditions are fulfilled, he can launch a complaint on the basic of the second dishonuer of the chequee as the cheque would remain valid for a period of six months”. Padmanbhan, L. without noticing the descution inb Mahadevan sunil kumar’s case took contray view in this order dated 18-2-1991(Cri R.P. No. 480/90).

2. Facts of this case are the following: Respodent herein filied a complaint before a Judical Magistate of first class alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence under section