Thomas, J.

In view of the conflicting views on interpretation of S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short 'the Act'), Thulasidas, J. has referred this case to a Division Bench. Balakrishnan, J. ha s held in Mahadevan Sunal Kumar v. Bhadran (1991 (1) KLT 651 = 1991 (1) K.L.J. 335) that "it is clear that cause of action for filing the complaint may arise on several occasions and the payee or holder in due course is entitled to present the cheque at any time within a period of six months from the date on which it was drawn and for filing the complaint he should have served notice of such dishonour to the drawer; the payee or holder in due course can make a second presentation of the cheque and if other conditions are fulfilled, he can launch a complaint en the basis of the second dish on the cheque as the cheque world remain valid for a period of six months". Padmanabhan, J. without noticing the decision in Mahadevan Sunil Kumar's case took contrary view in his order dated 18-2-1991 (Crl. R.P. No. 480/90).

2. Facts of this case are the following: Respondent herein filed a complaint before a Judicial Magistrate of First Class alleging that the petitioner has co