S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. Petitioner is the accused in two criminal cases, instituted on private complaints filed by third respondent before fourth respondent for offences punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. In this original petition, he wants S.138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act declared unconstitutional and prohibit fourth respondent from going ahead with trial of the cases.

3. In support of his case that S.138 and 142 of the Act are unconstitutional, following facts were placed before me. Under S.140 even the absence of reasonable belief that cheque will be dishonoured on presentment will not be a defence in a prosecution under S.138. Making an act done without mens rea an offence is illegal and arbitrary. A combined reading of S.138 and 142 shows that date of commission of the offence cannot be ascertained. According to him, at any rate, a postdated cheque cannot come under S.138. A cheque drawn for the discharge of a legally enforceable liability alone could form the subject matter of an offence punishable under S.138. Magistrate, who is empowered to try the offence, will not be competent to decide whether cheque was drawn for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability and it will have to be decided by a competent civil court. Therefore, penal provision is unworkable. Section is violative of Art.20(2) of the Constitution, because same offence is punishable under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code also.

4. In my opinion, these are all wrong and imaginary assumptions. S.138 was introduced with a laudable public policy behind it. It is intended to prevent or curtail a mischief, which is likely to affect financial transactions, and thereby trade and business and ultimately, economy of the country. Even though the normal rule is that an act or illegal omission, in order to constitute an offence, must be had with the requisite mental condition in the form of intention, knowledge or reasonable belief, that pre-requisite could be statutorily dispensed with in appropriate cases by creating strict liability offences in the interest of Nation, just like offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Further, there is no point in contending that mens rea is not required for constituting an offence punishable under S.138. What is made an offence is not the drawing of cheque alone. It must have been drawn in discharge, in whole or in part, of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. It must have been duly presented in time and dishonoured for the reasons specified. Then there must be a written demand for the amount within a specified time, followed by failure to make payment within another specified time. It becomes an offence only on such failure which is an illegal omission made with requisite mens rea. This aspect is also answer to the contention of petitioner that date of commission of the offence cannot be ascertained. Whether cheque is postdated or not is immaterial. It becomes an offence only after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of written demand, if the amount is not paid on that date. Date of commission of the offence could be ascertained with accuracy. Cause of action for filing a complaint under S.138 arises only on that date and complaint will have to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arose, as provided in S.142(b). It is duty of the person, who draws the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability, to provide funds in the account to honour the cheque. There is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in S.140, because a person, who drew the cheque without reason to believe that it may be dishonoured on presentation can avoid liability by making payment on demand in writing. One, who is not having such a capacity, should not issue a cheque, possibility of a stolen cheque being made the subject of complaint need not be considered, because that is only an imaginary possibility and it is a matter of