The court emphasized that the provisions of S.138 and its ancillary sections do not allow for multiple causes of action on the same cheque, and applied the principle of lenient interpretation in penal provisions.

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 committed the offence under S.138 of the Act (respondent will be referred to as the complainant hereinafter). He stated in the complaint that a cheque drawn on Vijaya Bank for Rs.10,000/- was issued by the petitioner on 4-11-1989 in favour of the complainant; and on 6-11-1989 the cheque was returned dishonoured by the drawee bank for the ground "refer to the drawer". Notice issued by the complainant was received by the petitioner on 23-11-89. But no payment was made pursuant to the said notice. Complainant again presented the said cheque on 15-1-90 before the drawee bank and was again dishonoured. A fresh notice was issued to the petitioner which he received on 13-2-90. As no payment was made by the petitioner thereafter too, the complaint was filed on 12-3-90. Learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and issued process to the petitioner. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the petitioner to quash the complaint.

3. The only ground urged by the petitioner is that respondent cannot have a second cause of action on the same cheque when once he had failed to institute a complaint on the strength ofthe first cause of action.

4. S.138 of the Act creates a new offence based on a cheque returned unpaid and subject to certain conditions. The said section and its ancillary provisions have been included in Chapter XVII of the Act. The said Chapter was introduced in the Act on 1-4-89. The offender as per S.138 is the drawer of the cheque. One of the conditions to constitute the offence is that the cheque should have been presented to the bank within six months of its issue. Another condition is that the payee should have made a demand for payment by registered notice after the cheque is returned unpaid. Third condition is that the drawer should have failed to pay the amount within 15 days of receipt of notice. Unless the cheque is returned unpaid due to insufficiency of amount of money standing to the credit of the drawer or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank, S.138 of the Act is not attracted. S.139 of the Act casts a presumption that holder of a cheque has received the same towards discharge of a liability. S.140 of the Act precludes the drawer from pleading that he had no reason to believe that the cheque would be dishonoured. A complaint can be filed only by a payee or holder in due course of the cheque. S.142 imposes a further restriction that no complaint can be filed after one month of the date on which the cause of action arose.

5. From the scheme of the provisions in Chapter XVII of the Act two features loom large. First is that more than one cause of action on the same cheque is not contemplated or envisaged. Second is, institution of prosecution cannot be made after one mo