The legal point established is that the right to file a complaint for dishonour of a cheque accrues once only, and the notices under the Negotiable Instrument Act must be served within the statutory period.

P.G. Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. R.P. Sarmah, the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. By this common order, we dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 674/2002, 675/2002 and 676/2002 analogously as they involve common question of law and facts and for the purpose of convenience, we like to quote the relevant facts from Criminal Revision No. 676/2002 which has been directed against the order dated 23.7.2002 passed in C.R. Case No. 1959 c/2002 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup, Guwahati.

3. The accused-Petitioners Saumitra Sankar Dutta and his wife Smti. Papiya Dutta, both Directors of M/s. Arati Plantation and Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., issued a cheque for Rs. 4,47,077/- in favour of the Respondent-complainant Sri Biswajit Paul. The said cheque was presented by the complainant for payment on 6.4.2002 and it was returned as the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of fund 'not arranged for'. The complainant thereafter issued a legal notice as required under Section 138Bof the Negotiable Instrument Act, for short, the Act and sent the said notice by registered post. The notice was returned back with the remark that "office always closed out of station." Thereafter, the complainant redeposited the said cheque on 4.6.2002 for clearance. But the cheque was again retuned back dishonoured on the ground of "account closed". The complainant thereafter issued a second notice on 6.6.2002 by registered post. The said notice was also returned back with the remark “Office totally abandoned”. The complainant thereafter made enquiries and gave another notice against the accused through local daily Newspaper on 19.6.2002 but as no payment was received, complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. The quashing of the complaint has been sought mainly on the ground that cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 19.4.2002 when first notice was issued and as the complainant did not file the complaint within the statutory period, the complaint is barred by limitation and second notice does not give a fresh lease of life as claimed by the accused Petitioners.

5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-complainant submits that issuance of second notice is not barred by law and under the circumstances, second notice maybe issued. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 676. The facts under which second notice was accepted by the Apex Court in M/s. Dalmia (supra) were altogether different. In that case, when the first notice was received by the addressee, it was found to be an empty envelope without any contents. Thereafter, the drawer of the cheque sent a letter to the complainant requesting them to send the contents thereof and as desired, the cheque was presented again and when it was dishonoured, fresh notice was served. Considering the peculiar facts of that case, the Apex Court held that the complainant tried to blow hot and cold in the same breath and in view of the letter of the drawer, the proceeding can not be quashed for want of proper notice.

6. The law regarding presentation of cheque upteem times was laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, (1998) 6 SCC 514 wherein the Apex Court held that under the provisions of Section 138and 142 of the NI Act, cause of action can arise once only. As regards the right to present cheque received by the payee, the Apex Court held as follows:

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 consideration to this questio