The right to present a cheque for encashment multiple times within six months, and the statutory presumption of service of notice of dishonour are key legal principles established in the judgment.

ORDER :

1. The present revision is filed against the judgment dated 29-9-2015 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Atrocities), Korba, in Cr. Appeal No. 01/15, which is arising out of judgment dated 26-12-2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, in Cr. Case No. 1735/12.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 Baljinder Singh Rajpal against the applicant Manjeet Singh Dhillan, alleging, inter-alia, that since both of them were known to each other, on the request of the applicant the complainant gave an amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs on 26-3-2011 towards loan and for which the post dated cheque bearing No. 822543 dated 26-3-2012 was given to the respondent No. 1. After one year when the cheque was presented on 3-4-2012 it got dishonoured on 6-4-2012. The said fact was informed to the applicant. Again on the advise of the applicant, the cheque was presented before the Bank on 15-5-2012, but it was again dishonoured on 18-5-2012. Again it was presented on 15-6-2012, which was got dishonoured on 18-6-2012. Thereafter, the complainant sent a notice to the applicant on 28-6-2012, but the said notice returned back on 29-6-2012 with an endorsement that the ‘doors are closed’. Consequently, the complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) was filed. Both the parties adduced their evidence before the Judicial Magistrate. On conclusion of trial, the Court below convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months and also directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by such judgment, the applicant filed the criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, who, in turn, by the impugned judgment, maintained the judgment rendered by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. Thus, this revision.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the cheque was initially deposited on 3-4-2012 and having been dishonoured for the first time the cause of action arose. He would further submit that though the legal notice was issued, but the same was not served upon the applicant with an endorsement that the doors are closed and as per Section 138 and 142 of the Act the notice is duly required to be served.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant, per contra, would submit that as per Section 94 of the Act the statutory presumption would draw when the notice is served, therefore, the argument would not be available to the applicant.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

6. A post dated cheque bearing No. 822543 dated 26-3-2012 was given by the applicant to the complainant for repayment of loan amount. The same was presented by the complainant in the Bank on 3-4-2012, however, it got dishonoured on 6-4-2012 for want of sufficient funds. As per the statement of the complaint, it is evident that on the advise of the applicant the said cheque was again presented on 15-5-2012, but it was again dishonoured on 18-5-2012. Having been contacted with the applicant and on his advise, the cheque again presented on 15-6-2012 for clearance, which was got dishonoured on 18-6-2012. In this regard, respective documents are on record i.e. Ex.P/1, P/2, P/3 & P/4.

7. For the sake of brevity the provisions of Sections 138 & 142 of the Act are quoted below:

“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 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 pa