Hon’ble Anurag Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.11.1999 rendered by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow (Customs) in Complaint Case No. 1227/97.

2. Relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are as under :

3. The appellant is a sole proprietor firm and Ashwani Kapoor Proprietor being the proprietor of the firm is dealing in the business of Pace Battery. Respondent No. 1 purchased 10 peaces of new pace setter batteries costing Rs. 21,219 and issued a cheque No. 268297 dated 1.8.1996 drawn by the bank of Baroda Hewett Road Branch Lucknow in favur of the appellant. The appellant presented the cheque on 1.8.1996 in its bank that is Indian Overseas Bank, Main Branch Lucknow. On 3.8.1996 he was informed by the bank that the said cheque was received back unpaid with a note for want of sufficient fund. The appellant then contacted the respondent and informed him about non-payment of cheque, on which, respondent stated to produce the cheque again after some time and assured that now the cheque will be cleared. The appellant again produced the cheque, but it was again not cleared by the bank then the appellant vide letter dated 29.11.1996 asked the respondent to pay the amount of cheque. After receiving of the said letter. The respondent again stated to appellant that now the cheque will be cleared and requested him to deposit it again. On 29.1.1997, the appellant again despoited the cheque in its Overseas Bank, but again the cheque was received back with the note “Refund to drawer insufficient fund” cheque was received back to the appellant on 31.1.1997. appellant sent a registered notice on 8.2.1997 which was received by respondent on 20.2.1997, but even after expiry of 15 days time no payment was made by the respondent, appellant has no remedy except to file the complaint and he filed the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short “Act”). Learned lower Court after recording the evidence of the complainant and statement of respondent accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hearing the parties by impugned judgment dated 2.11.1999 acquitted the respondent A.K. Singh on the ground that appellant has given notice to accused on 29.11.1996 and filed the complaint on 18.3.1997 after the limit prescribed under the Negotiable Instrument Act.

4. Aggrieved from the said judgment, appellant/complainant filed the present appeal on the ground that the finding of the lower Court is based on the wrong interpretation of the evidence on record. The trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the respondent himself after receiving the letter asked to present the cheque again and promised to make arrangement for getting the cheque to be honoured. The appellant has presented the cheque only on the request of the respondent and as the cheque was presented on the request of the respondent, fresh cause of action occurred to him. The cheque can be presented for encashment any number of time within the period of its validity and its dishonour at every occasion will give rise to a fresh cause of action within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

5. Heard learned counsel for the respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State. None is present on behalf of the appellant on the date of argument and on previous date i.e. 9.11.2012.

6. The only point to be considered in this appeal is whether the time prescribed under the Act starts from the date of the first notice or it starts after the last notice; whether a new cause of action arises if on the request of respondent cheque was presented on second time. In the present case, there is no dispute that the cheque first time was presented in the bank on 1.8.1996 and was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient fund on 3.8.1996, on which, first request for payment within 15 days after receiving of request was made on 29.11.1996. The contention in the appeal of the appellant in this regard is th