Successive causes of action may arise on the basis of one and the same cheque for filing a complaint under S. 142, subject to the restrictions contained in Ss. 138 and 142 of the Act. Even if successive causes of action arise, only one prosecution and conviction or acquittal is possible, and a complaint will be maintainable if the payee or holder in due course is able to establish all the ingredients of the offence and satisfy the other requirements of the provisions contained in Ss. 138 and 142 of the Act.

Headnote:
Kumaresan - Conflict between two earlier decisions of two learned single Judges of this Court - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (S. 138, S. 142) - The court discussed the conflict between the judgments in Mahadevan Sunil Kumar v. Bhadran and Crl RP No. 480 of 1990, and the decision in Kumaresan's case. The court analyzed the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act, the object and reasons clause of the bill, and the scheme of the provisions in Chapter XVII. The court concluded that successive causes of action may arise on the basis of one and the same cheque for filing a complaint under S. 142, subject to the restrictions contained in Ss. 138 and 142 of the Act. The court also held that even if successive causes of action arise, only one prosecution and conviction or acquittal is possible, and a complaint will be maintainable if the payee or holder in due course is able to establish all the ingredients of the offence and satisfy the other requirements of the provisions contained in Ss. 138 and 142 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners are accused in S.T. No. 561 of 1993 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur. They are being proceeded against on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent in the Crl.M.C. under S. 138 of the Act. The petitioners have filed the Crl.M.C. to quash the complaint under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint was filed after the cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank on 11-8-1993 and after the petitioners have failed to pay the amount demanded as per the notice issued on 11-8-1993 and received by the petitioners on 19-8-1993 and 20-8-1993. The petitioners have contended that even before 11-8-1993 and cheque was once presented and dishonoured in May, 1993. Pointing out such dishonour the first respondent has issued a letter to the petitioners dated 10-5-1993 claiming bank charges. No complaint was filed on the basis of the first dishonour which took place prior to the dishonour on 11-8-1993. As such it was contended that the complaint filed by the first respondent on the basis of which a case has been charged against them is not maintainable in the light of the principles laid down in Kumaresan's case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that Kumaresan's case has not been correctly decided and that successive causes of action may arise on the basis of one and the same cheque for filing a complaint under S. 142, subject to the restrictions contained in Ss. 138 and 142 of the Act. The court also held that even if successive causes of action arise, only one prosecution and conviction or acquittal is possible, and a complaint will be maintainable if the payee or holder in due course is able to establish all the ingredients of the offence and satisfy the other requirements of the provisions contained in Ss. 138 and 142 of the Act.
Issues: The court addressed the issue of whether the payee or holder in due course of a dishonoured cheque can validly initiate prosecution for an offence under S. 138 of the Act with reference to a second cause of action if he had not taken advantage of the first cause of action accrued to him and prosecuted the offender in time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that successive causes of action may arise on the basis of one and the same cheque for filing a complaint under S. 142, subject to the restrictions contained in Ss. 138 and 142 of the Act. The court also held that even if successive causes of action arise, only one prosecution and conviction or acquittal is possible, and a complaint will be maintainable if the payee or holder in due course is able to establish all the ingredients of the offence and satisfy the other requirements of the provisions contained in Ss. 138 and 142 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

Judgment :-

RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The correctness of the Division Bench decision reported in Kumaresan v. Ameerappa (1991 (1) Ker LT 893) which settled to conflict between two earlier decisions of two learned single Judges of this Court was doubted by another Division Bench in this Crl. Miscellaneous Case and it is thus the case is before us. In the reference order the Division Bench has pointed out that in the light of the decisions in M/s. Syed Rasool and Sons v. M/s. Aildas and Co. (1992 Cri LJ 4048) (Andh Pra) Rakesh Porwal v. Narayan Joglekar (1993 Cri LJ 680) (Bom), Voltas Ltd. v. Hiralal Agarwalla (1991 Cri LJ 609) (Cal) and Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar (1994 (1) Ker LT 33 (SN) (Case No. 32)), the decision of the Division Bench in Kumeresan's case (1991 (1) Ker LT 893) requires reconsideration. The conflict settled by Kumaresan's decision was between the judgments in Mahadevan Sunil Kumar v. Bhadran (1991 (1) Ker LT 651) and the judgment in Crl RP No. 480 of 1990. In Kumaresan's case the Division Bench has approved the view taken in Crl.R.P. No. 480 of 1990 and has disapproved the view taken in Mahadevan's case (1991 (1) Ker LT 651).

2. Before dealing with the point arising for consideration, we may refer briefly to the conflict settled by Kumaresan's case. In Mahadevan's case Balakrishnan, J. has held 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 6 months from the date at which it was drawn and if other conditions are fulfilled he can launch a complaint on the basis of the second or any subsequent dishonour of the cheque as the months. The learned Judge has obviously proceeded on the basis that successive causes of action can arise on the repeated presentation and dishonour of the same cheque during its validity and the payee or holder in due course can initiate prosecution for offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") with reference to any one of the causes of action if he satisfies strictly the other conditions prescribed in the relevant provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Act. It was on the basis that the view so taken in Mahadevan's case (1991 (1) Ker LT 651) is contrary to the view taken by Padmanabhan, J. in Crl.R.P. No. 480 of 1990 that the matter was referred to a Division Bench and the decision now doubted was rendered by that Division Bench.

3. We may also note here itself that the decision in Kumaresan's case (1991 (1) Ker LT 893) has been followed in a later decision reported in Chellakkannu Nadar v. Simon (1993 (2) Ker LT 831) : (1994 Cri LJ 3515) by the same learned Judge who has rendered the decision in Kumaresan's case sitting single repelling an appeal for reconsideration of the said decision in the light of the decisions in M/s. Syed Rasool and Sons v. M/s. Aildas & Co. (1992 Cri LJ 4049) (Andh Pra) and Rakash Porwal v. Narayan Joglekar (1993 Cri LJ 680 (Bom).

4. At this stage we may briefly state the facts of the case on hand : The petitioners are accused in S.T. No. 561 of 1993 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur. They are being proceeded against on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent in the Crl.M.C. under S. 138 of the Act. The petitioners have filed the Crl.M.C. to quash the complaint under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Petitioners have admittedly issued a cheque for Rs. 20,645 to the first respondent. The complaint was filed after the cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank on 11-8-1993 and after the petitioners have failed to pay the amount demanded as per the notice issued on 11-8-1993 and received by the petitioners on 19-8-1993 and 20-8-1993. In the Crl.M.C. the petitioners have contended that even before 11-8-1993 and cheque was once presented and dishonoured in May, 1993. Pointing out such dishonour the first respondent has issued a letter to the petitioners da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1995 Supreme(Ker) 10

Cases Referred (1)