The legal maintainability of a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, and the interpretation of demand notices served by the respondent.

( 1 ) IN this petitfon under section 482 criminal PROCEDURE CODE filed by the petitioner company through its director Mrs Archana Sukhija it is interalia, alleged that a complaint under section 138 of the negotiable Instrument? Act, 1881 (for short, the act ) was filed by respondent No. 2 on the ground of a cheque for Rs. 40,000. 00 issued by petitioner company having been dishonoured for insufficient funds. At the stage of notice under section 251 criminal PROCEDURE CODE it was contender) before the Trial court that complaint filed on 11/7/1997 was barred by limitation. Complaint. is based on third demand notice dated 27/5/1997 served by respondent no. 2 on the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 had previously served demand notices dated 13/1/1997 and 12/3/1997 on the petitioner. Said objection was,however, repelled by the trial court, by the order dated 17/8/1998, Thereafter another application for dropping proceedings was filed by the petitioner which came to be dismissed on 24/3/2000. Criminal revision. filed against the later order was dismissed as withdrawn on 6/12/2000. It is further alleged that Trial court had failed to consider that respondent No. 2 did not have cause of action to file the present complaint in view of the decision in Sadariandan Bhadrari. vs. Madhavan sunil Kumar AIR 1998 SC 3043. It was prayed that complaint may be quashed,

( 2 ) I have heard Sh. P. Norula for petitioner, sh. Dinesh K. Gupta for respondent No. 2 and sh. M. N. Dudej for respondent No. 1-State and have also been taken through the record it is not ,in dispute that prior to filing of complaint against the petitioner company and its said director , the respondent No. 2 had served three notices dated 13/1/1997, 12/03/1997 and 27/05/1997. Copies of these notices are placed on pages 50, 70 and 18 respectively on the file. Copy of the order dated 17/8/1998 referred to in the petition is placed at pages 20 to 22 while that of order 2 4/07/2000 at page 23. Copy of yet another order- dated 6/12/2000 passed in Criminal revision is at page 23-A on the file, In terms or aforesaid 3 demand notices sent through counsel the respondent No. 2 had called upon the petitioner and its said director to make payment of cheque no ,197581 dated 30/12/1996 for a sum of rs. 40,000. 00 within 15 days of the. receipt of the notice (s ). Bare perusal, of said order dated 24/7/2000 would reveal that the application filed by petitioner company for recalling the summoning order was dismissed on the ground that court did not have the power to review its order. Further, bare reading of another order dated 6/12/2000 would show that Criminal Revision filed against I he orderd dated 4/7/2000 was got dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner company.

( 3 ) SUBMISSION advanced on behalf of respondent No, 2 was that the petitioner company in order to discharge its liability issued 3 cheques for Rs. 30,000. 00, Rs. 36,813. 00 and Rs. 40,000. 00 and all these cheques on presentation were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds- In response to first notice dated 13/1/1997 the petitioner through its director orally requested respondent No. 2 to re-present said 3 cheques. On presentation cheque for Rs. 30,000. 00 was honoured while remaining two were dishonoured. This resulted in issuing of second notice dated 17/3/1997. Again respondent No,. 2 was requested to present, the two cheques. On re-presentation, cheque for Rs. 36,000. 00 was honoured while cheque for Rs. 40,000. 00 dishonoured This gave rise to issuing of third notice dated 27/5/1997 by respondent No,2 to the petitioner company and its said director. Failure to make payment of the amount of said cheque within 15 days of the receipt of notice dated 27/5/1997 by the petitioner company, and its said director had furnished fresh cause of action to File complaint to respondent No. 2. As part of this submission, relying on the decision in Deepti @ Arati Rai vs. Akhil Rai and Ors. JT 1995 (7) SC 175 it was also contended