IMPORTANT POINT
There can be no two cause of actions from same dishonoured cheque.

Surinder Singh, J.—The petitioner herein was summoned as an accused in the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “the Act”) that sought quashing of the proceedings against him to the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation on the issuance of first notice of demand in the second notice would not be a fresh lease or cause of action to file the complaint.

2. Heard and gone through the record of the case.

3. The facts relevant for the disposal of the petition can be stated thus?

The respondent is alleged to have sold the accused-petitioner old fitting-equipments and machinery for Rs. 95,000 and the petitioner. accused allegedly issued the cheque No. 433616 dated 4.5.2007 drawn on his account No. 628505009913 on ICICI Bank of Meerut Branch to discharge his liability.

4. The cheque aforesaid on its presentation was dishonoured as the petitioner was having “insufficient fund” in his account. Thus, the respondent sent a legal notice dated 24.6.2007 by post on 3.7.2007 vide, postal receipt No. 621, calling upon the accused-petitioner calling him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt thereof.

5. The notice was returned with the endorsement made on 11.7.2007 by the postman, that despite repeated visits the addressee was not available. Thereafter the complainant sent another notice on 19.7.07 by registered post, which also bounced back with the endorsement dated 26.7.07 that no such person was available on the given address.

6. According to the respondent, accused petitioner was deliberately avoiding the service of notice in connivance with the postal department, thus filed the complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate on 20.8.2007.

7. After preliminary evidence, learned Trial Court found reasonable grounds to summon the accused petitioner as an accused for the alleged offence vide, the impugned order dated 16.11.2007, which has been challenged in this petition on the abovestated grounds.

8. Chapter XVII of the Act containing the fascicle of Section 138 to 142 was brought into the statute book with effect from 1.4.1989 by Section 4 of the Banking Public Financial Institution and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act) 1988. The “Object and Reasons” clause of the Bill which introduced the Amending Act, indicates that the new chapter was incorporated to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liabilities by making the drawer liable for penalties in case of bouncing of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account(s), for the reason that it exceeds the arrangement made by the drawer with safeguards to prevent harassment of honest drawers.

9. Now, Section 138, of the Act reads as under:

“Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a Banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the Bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that Bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheques, or with both:

Provided that, nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information b