1. This revision is directed against the order of Special Exise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, dated 10.10.1994, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as the Act).

2. The facts which gave rise to this petition briefly are as under:-

3. The petitioner had supplied to the respondent resin and terpine material under various invoices, valued at Rs.11507/-. In consideration there of, the respondent issued a cheque dated 7.5.1993 in favour of the petitioner. The cheque, when presented, was dishonoured by the Bank on 28.5.1993 on account of insufficiency of funds. The petitioner, there upon issued a notice dated 3.6.1996 calling upon the respondent to pay the amount within the prescribed period. However, the respondant did not make the payment.

4. The petitioner, again presented the cheque to the Bankers, however, it was dishonoured again on account of insufficient funds vide memo dated 20.9.1993 calling upon the respondent to make the payment within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice, which was duly served upon the respondent. The respondent failed to make the payment within the stipulated period of fifteen days and as such the petitioner filed the complaint in the court of trial magistrate on 22.10.1993.

5. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of the statement of the petitioner, recorded in preliminary evidence and other documents found a prima facie case made out against the respondent for an offence u/s 138 of the Act and, accordingly, summoned him through bailable warrants. The respondent appeared in the trial court and filed an application for quashment of the complaint alleging therein that the cause of action in favour of the petitioner arose on 28.5.1993 when the cheque was dishonoured for the first time and in that regard the petitioner served notice dated 3.6.1993 upon the respondent demanding the amount, and that the present complaint, which has been filed after the cheque was presented and dishonoured for the second time, was not maintainable and was time barred. The petitioner contested this application. He admitted the factual position as projected by the respondent but pleaded that the petitioner was within his right to present the cheque on any number of times within six months from the date of its issue and as such the present complaint, which was filed after the cheque was dishonoured for the second time, was well within time and was maintainable.

6. The learned trial magistrate upheld the contentions of the respondent and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner, being time barred and not maintainable on the second cause of action.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at the length, I feel that the approach of the trial court in dismissing the complaint, does not suffer from any infirmity and the revision petition deserves dismissal.

The salient features of Section 138 of the Act are:-

i. Cheque in question should have been issued in discharge of whole or part of debt or liability;

ii. The cheque should be presented within six months or within the specific validity period whichever is earlier;

iii. The payee or holder should give notice demanding payment within fifteen days of his receiving information of dishonour;

iv. Drawer can make payment within fifteen days of the receipt of notice and in case he fails to make the payment, he becomes liable to be prosectued.

8. There is no dispute that the petitioner could present the cheque on any number of times to the bankers within six months of the date of its issuance or within the stipulated period whichever is earlier, but I am not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as petitioner was within his right to present the cheque for any number of times, within the pescribed period, he could as such file the complaint on the second cause of action, when the cheque was dishonoured for the second time.

9. Issaunce of cheque, its dishonour and re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document