9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence and issued process for appearance of the accused persons i.e the appellants. An application filed for dropping further proceedings and for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it was not maintainable, was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 19-12-1996. The High Court was moved in revision by the appellant. The revision application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26-8-1998. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the complaint is not maintainable because the cause of action had arisen on the dishonour of the cheque in the first instance i.e on 14-2-1995, but no complaint was filed within one month thereafter. Though a notice was issued on 15-2-1995 demanding payment u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent is that one-month period as contemplated by Section 142(b) should be reckoned with reference to the expiry of the period of 15 days after the second notice was issued on 29-6-1995. It is submitted that there is no bar to re-present the cheque so long as the cheque is valid and it was therefore open to the respondent to file a complaint after the issuance of the second notice. The issue is no longer res integra. A similar contention advanced on behalf of the respondent has been negatived by this Court construing the relevant provisions of Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Act in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar 1998 6 SCC 514. This Court observed that a combined reading of Section 138 and Section 142 leaves no room f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment which has been followed in the subsequent decisions supports the appellant's contention. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the first notice dated 15-2-1995 is really not a notice contemplated by clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 and it cannot be construed to have given rise to a cause of action to file the complaint. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the earlier notice was only in the nature of a communication which does not spell out in clear terms a demand to make the payment. We find it difficult to accept the contention. On a reading of the letter dated 15-2-1995, it is plainly clear that the respondent required immediate payment of the amount of cheque to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
