IMPORTANT POINT
For an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it is no were contemplated that notice issued by the payee of cheque should prescribe 15 days period.

Pratap Singh, J. - The accused in C.C. No. 6 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No. II Tiruppur, under Section 482, of Criminal procedure Code, has filed this petition, praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same.

2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The complainant is doing hosiery business under the name and style of "Ever King Garments". He is one of the partners of the firm. The accused had been doing business with the complainant by way of purchasing hoisery goods. For the goods supplied to the accused, the accused had issued a cheque on 5.8.1992 for Rs. 6,420 in favour of the complainant. On 20.8.1992 the accused had issued another cheque in favour of this complainant. On 25.8.1992 and 7.9.1992, the accused had issued another 2 cheques for Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 7,245 respectively. When the above cheques were presented before the proper bank on various dates for collection in the Catholic Syrian Bank, Tiruppur, the cheques were dishonoured as there was insufficient fund. The complainant informed the accused about the return of the cheques. The accused apologised and requested the complainant to present the cheques once again in the last week of November. Accordingly the complainant presented the cheques on 26.11.1992 and they were once again dishonoured and returned to the complainant with an endorsement that there was insufficient funds: The complainant issued a registered notice on 3.12.1992 and the accused sent a reply on 7.12.1992. He did not make any arrangements for the payment of the amounts due under the cheque to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

3. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, (1) the notice issued by the complainant on 3.12.1992 is defective in the sense that only 3 days time was given in it for payment of the amount; (2) Cause of action arose only in Pondicherry and the court, Tiruppur, has no jurisdiction to try the case; and (3) The first presentation alone would give rise to the cause of action and the second presentation of the cheque would not give rise to cause of action and this complaint laid on the basis of the second presentation and the return of the cheque on the ground of insufficiency of funds" is not maintainable.

4. I have carefully considered the submission made by Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner. I shall consider them in seriatim. Regarding the first submission, the relevant portion in the statutory notice is extracted as follows:

"Therefore this is to call upon you to pay the entire amount as mentioned above with 24% interest per annum within 3 days from the date of this notice, otherwise, my client has to take action in criminal court, for which you are responsible for the costs and consequences thereon."

5. Presently, I shall refer to the relevant clauses (b) and (c) of the Proviso to Sec. 138 of the Act which read as follows:

(a) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment for the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the nature of the cheque as unpaid; and

(b) 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."

Sec. 142 (b) of the Act is also relevant and it reads as follows:

"Cognizance of offences:

(a)…

(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 Sec. 138."

A conjoint reading of clause (c) of the proviso to Sec. 138 of