IMPORTANT POINT
Though cheque could be presented for many times during the validity of cheque, but once a notice under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act was given, complainant forfeited the right to represent the cheque and cause of action for filing complaint would arise.

P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND

P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.—THE RESPONDENT FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ON 31-7-1995 UNDER SECTION 138 READ WITH SECTION 141 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 CONSEQUENT UPON THE DISHONOUR OF THE CHEQUE BEARING NO. 734133 DATED 13-2-1995 FOR RS 14,96,056. THE SAID CHEQUE WAS ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF TEA FROM THE RESPONDENT CONCERN. AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINANT, THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE AND ISSUED PROCESS FOR APPEARANCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS I.E. THE APPELLANTS. AN APPLICATION FILED FOR DROPPING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE, WAS REJECTED BY THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BY HIS Order DATED 19-12-1996. THE HIGH COURT WAS MOVED IN REVISION BY THE APPELLANT. THE REVISION APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED BY THE IMPUGNED Order DATED 26-8-1998.

2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS SUBMITS THAT THE COMPLAINT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAD ARISEN ON THE DISHONOUR OF THE CHEQUE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE I.E. ON 14-2-1995, BUT NO COMPLAINT WAS FILED WITHIN ONE MONTH THEREAFTER. THOUGH A NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 15-2-1995 DEMANDING PAYMENT UNDER THE CHEQUE, THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FILED. THE CHEQUE WAS REPRESENTED ON

22-6-1995. AGAIN, THE BANK RETURNED THE CHEQUE AS IT HAD INSTRUCTIONS TO STOP PAYMENT. THE RESPONDENT THEN TOOK THE STEP OF ISSUING ANOTHER NOTICE ON 29-6-1995 FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT REPLIED ON 7-7-1995 DENYING HIS LIABILITY. THE RESPONDENT THEREAFTER FILED A COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 READ WITH 141 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT ON 31-7-1995. SECTION 142 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT ENACTS A BAR AGAINST TAKING COGNIZANCE OF AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 UNLESS SUCH A COMPLAINT IS MADE WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 138. CLAUSE (C) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 138 CONTEMPLATES A SITUATION WHEN THE DRAWER OF SUCH CHEQUE FAILS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF THE MONEY TO THE PAYEE OR AS THE CASE MAY BE TO THE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF THE CHEQUE WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE SAID NOTICE. THOUGH, THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 142(B) ARISES ON THE FAILURE OF THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEMAND MADE IN THE NOTICE, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THAT THE ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 142(B) READ WITH CLAUSE (C) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 138 IS RELATABLE TO THE FIRST NOTICE AND ON THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF 15 DAYS, THE COMPLAINT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN ONE MONTH THEREAFTER. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT IS THAT ONE MONTH PERIOD AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 142(B) SHOULD BE RECKONED WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF 15 DAYS AFTER THE SECOND NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 29-6-1995. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BAR TO REPRESENT THE CHEQUE SO LONG AS THE CHEQUE IS VALID AND IT WAS THEREFORE OPEN TO THE RESPONDENT TO FILE A COMPLAINT AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE SECOND NOTICE. THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA. A SIMILAR CONTENTION ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN NEGATIVED BY THIS COURT CONSTRUING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 138, 141 AND 142 OF THE ACT IN SADANANDAN BHADRAN V. MADHAVAN SUNIL KUMAR.1 THIS COURT OBSERVED THAT A COMBINED READING OF SECTION 138 AND SECTION 142 LEAVES NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 142(B) ARISES AND CAN ARISE ONLY ONCE. AT PARA 9 IT WAS CLARIFIED AS UNDER: (SCC PP. 519-20)

“9.Now, the question is how the apparently conflicting provisions of the Act, one enabling the payee to repeatedly present the cheque and the other giving him only one opportunity to file a complaint for its dishonour, and that too, within one month from the date the cause of action arises, can be reconciled. Having given our anxious c