1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment passed by the learned Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jammu in File No. 9/Criminal dated 27.3.95. By means of impugned judgment, learned trial Court had dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and 420, RPC.

2. As per case of the appellant, respondent had issued six cheques of different amounts between 18.11.91 to 23.12.91. When these were presented for encashment, those were dishonoured. Amount covered by cheques related to purchase of hosiery goods and readymade garments by respondent from the appellant towards the price of such articles. Appellant further alleges that he was assured by respondent that whenever cheques are presented those would be encashed.

3. It is in these circumstances appellant was induced to part with the goods. This was also alleged to be the result of dishonest intention of the respondent who never intended to pay the amount. This plea was strengthened because the respondent had no account in the Bank and cheques were returned with the memo "Refer to drawer".

4. Appellant claims that first notice was issued on 25.2.92 which could not be served because of the collusion between the respondent and postman and false endorsement was made to the effect that the respondent was not at his business. He again served a notice which is stated to have been issued on 7.3.92, fate of this was also like the previous one. A third notice is also claimed to have been issued by the appellant which was followed by last and fourth notice dated 25.4.92.

5. Before issuance of last notice, appellant had represented the cheques for encashment, which were dishonoured on 20.4.92. It was thereafter, notice was issued on 25.4.92 by registered post, under certificate of posting and one of its copy having been pasted at the business premises of the respondent. On these assertion complaint above referred was filed.

6. After recording preliminary evidence, notice was issued to respondent for his appearance by the trial Court. Thereafter evidence was recorded on behalf of appellant. It may be incidentally pointed out that issuance of cheques and dishonour are admitted by respondent. However, his specific case is that cash payment was made in lieu of an amount of these cheques which were to be returned by the respondent. Those were not returned. Receipt of notice was also denied.

7. Another fact that needs to be noticed is that after the last dishonour of cheques on 20.4.92, notice was issued on 25.4.92 by three modes referred to hereinabove. Photograph of pasting of notice has also been produced on record by the appellant. The complaint before the trial Court was presented on 9.5.92 i.e. on 14th day.

8. As per requirement of Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after the intimation of dishonour of a cheque is received by the drawee/holder in due course as the case may be, within 15 days of receipt of intimation of such dishonour, notice is required to be issued to the drawer of the cheque in question. Under law drawer has got further period of 15 days to make the payment from the receipt of such notice of dishonour of the cheque in question. It is only thereafter that an action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be initiated against the defaulting party.

9. As pernarration of the facts above, cheques were initially dishonoured when first notice dated 25.2.92 was issued. Under law a cheque can be presented number of times during the period of its validity. This is both in accordance with the provision of Negotiable Instruments Act as well as per banking practice. This may give a right to a litigant.

10. Allowing 15 days time to a party to make the payment on receipt of notice of demand has a laudable purpose behind it to enable such a person to make the payment of the cheque in question which could not be encashed. In a given situation possibility being thereof an honest dr