On each presentation of the cheque and its dishonour, a fresh right accrues in favor of the payee under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.

1. Partners of Soni Coal Company preferred Criminal Complaint No.29 of 1990. They averred in the complaint that the accused-respondent Pawittar Singh had issued three cheques, the detail of which is as under:-

Cheque No. Date exhibit Amount 608714 10.7.1990 Ex. P3 Rs.10,000/- 608712 30.5.1990 Ex. P1 rs.20,000/- 608713 20.6.1990 Ex. P2 Rs.25,000/- These cheques were presented. Cheque No.608714 amounting to Rs.10,000/- was returned on 11.7.1990, whereas other two cheques were returned on 10.7.1990. Complainant had issued a notice Ex. P6 on 17.7.1990.

2 Complainant led preliminary evidence and the accused were summoned to stand trial. After the complainant had led his evidence, the Court of judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar convicted accused-respondent Pawittar singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused-respondent was also made liable to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, Pawittar Singh accused- respondent had filed an appeal. The appellate Court relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Gulshan Rai V/s. Darshan Lal, 1995 (1) Civil Court Cases 55 to hold that cheques were also presented and notice was not given from the date, they were returned. Re-presentation of the cheques and their return cannot be construed as a point for commencement of limitation. The observations which led to acquittal of the accused- respondent are mentioned in para 9 of the impugned judgment and the same read as under:-

"9. I find that there is force in the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused. Jatinder Kumar Soni while appearing as PW-4 admitted in his cross-examination that two cheques were presented to the bank twice and the last cheque was presented once. He further stated that he did not remember the difference of presenting the cheques to the banks for the first time and the second time. Even A. K. Soni PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that cheque Ex. P-1 was sent for clearance twice when the cheque came back no notice was issued. When the cheque came back second time then notice was issued. The cheque Ex. P-2 was also presented twice for clearance. Cheque Ex. P-3 was presented only once. Cheque ex. P-1 and P-2 placed on the record also show that those were sent to the bank twice. Admittedly o notice was issued when the cheques Ex. P-1 and P-2 were dishonored for the first time. When such are the circumstances, the accused deserves to be acquitted. To this view I find support from the authority gulshan Rai Vs. Darshan Lal (Supra), where it was held to the following effect: "counsel for the petitioner in support of her arguments, has relied upon the judgment in M/s. K. P. V. Textiles and another V/s. M/s Malook Chand naresh Chand 1992 (2) RCR 425 and Kumaresean V. Ameerapa 1991 (3) RCR 172. In these judgments it has been held by this court that no prosecution can be lodged against the accused on the basis of cheques again presented, but not honoured as the complainant could not have second cause of action on the same cheque. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by the counsel for the respondent. In view of the aforesaid judgments, this petition deserves to be accepted. "

to the same effect is the law laid down in the authorities M/s k. P. V. Textiles and another Vs. M/s Malook Chand Naresh (Supra), M/s. Rita khanna Vs. M/s R. S. Traders (Supra) and S. K. Behal Vs. M/s Berlina Constructions house (Supra ). All these authorities are of our own High Court and those are binding on this court. "

Mr. S. D. Bansal appearing for the complainant-appellants has relied upon a judgment of Honble Apex Court in sadanandan Bhadran V/s. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, 1998 (4) RCR (Criminal) 90 to contend that on each presentation of cheque which was dishonoured, a fresh right accrue