1992 (3) TMI 365 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Interpretation of the number of times a cheque can be presented to the bank under Section 138.
3. Legal implications of presenting a cheque multiple times within the validity period.
4. Applicability of the principle of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict in cheque bounce cases.
5. Interpretation of Section 138 of the Act in favor of the accused as a penal provision.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Time-barred complaint under Section 138
The petitioner argued that the complaint was time-barred as it was presented beyond one month from the date when the cause of action arose under Section 138. The causes of action were considered to arise on the dates when the cheques were returned after presentation. The petitioner contended that no fresh cause of action could arise on the second presentation of cheques.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the number of times a cheque can be presented
The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment and contended that no second cause of action could arise on the same cheque. However, a different view was expressed by another Division Bench. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 138 and observed that there was no explicit limitation on the number of times a cheque could be presented within the validity period.

Issue 3: Legal implications of presenting a cheque multiple times
The court rejected the notion that presenting a cheque multiple times could lead to repeated prosecutions and convictions of the drawer. It emphasized that the statute did not restrict the number of times a cheque could be presented within the validity period.

Issue 4: Principle of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict
The court discussed the applicability of the principle of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict, stating that if a complaint is filed within the stipulated period after the cause of action arises, the same cheque cannot be presented again for a fresh cause of action.

Issue 5: Interpretation of Section 138 in favor of the accused
The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the need to interpret Section 138 liberally in favor of the accused, considering it as a penal provision. It highlighted that the legislature's intent was clear in allowing presentation of cheques within a specified period without imposing restrictions on the number of presentations.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitions, stating that the remaining contentions involved questions of fact that needed to be established through evidence. The court upheld the legal principles regarding the presentation of cheques and the interpretation of Section 138 in favor of the accused as a penal provision.