( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is directed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 128/92 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE petitioner issued four cheques under dated 15-12-1991, 18-12-1991, 19-12-1991 and 23-12-1991 respectively for Rs. 60,000. 00, 70,000/-, 40,000/- and Rupees 50,000/- all on the Indian Bank, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent presented them on 18-1-1992 in the State Bank of India, Main Office, Bank Street, Hyderabad for encashment. All the said cheque bounced on 22-1-1992 for want of funds in the account of the petitioner and to the same effect the first respondent was informed on the following date i. e. on 23-1-1992. As such on 28-1-1992 R-1 issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the amounts covered by the said cheques, but having received the said notices the petitioner neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. Consequently the Ist respondent filed C. C. No. 128/92 on the file of the IInd Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in brief the Act ). As such the petitioner who is the sole accused in C. C. 128/92 filed the present proceedings under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the C. C. No. 128/92.

( 3 ) IT is the main contention of the petitioner that the four post dated cheques are issued on 23-6-1990 payable on different dates, the said cheques, even according to the petitioner, were presented on 18-1-1992 for encashment i. e. , long after six months period prescribed under S. 138 of the Act and consequently the prosecution is not maintainable. On the contrary the contention of the Ist respondent is that the cheques were presented within six months from the dates shown on the said cheques and consequently the prosecution is well within time.

( 4 ) ON 28-1-1992 the Ist respondent got issued a registered notice through his counsel alleging that the cheques issued by the petitioner were presented for encashment, they bounced and accordingly petitioner was intimated about the factum of bouncing. In the said notice it is further averred as follows :"that on 23-6-1990 you have issued four post dated cheques payable on different dates in favour of my client for repayment of the said amount on different dates. My client has deposited the said four cheques in his account for encashment in his bank, State Bank of India, Main Branch, on 18-1-1992. But all the four cheques were returned back to my client as bounced. "thus, it is the specific case of the Ist Respondent that all the four cheques in question were post dated cheques issued under date 23-6-1990 though the said cheques show that they were issued on different dates in December, 1991. In view of the registered notice dated 28-1-1992 wherein it was mentioned that all the four cheques were post dated cheques issued on 23-6-1990 the question is whether the prosecution is in time. S. 138 of the Act so far as it is relevant reads thus :"138. 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 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 provisions 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 : Provide