Cheque presentation within limitation under section 138 is mandatory; delayed routing through another bank defeats prosecution.

For an offence under section 138, the cheque must be presented to the bank on which it is drawn within the statutory period. Presentation through an intermediary bank does not satisfy the requirement where the cheque reaches the drawer's bank after limitation expires. The court held that the holder must act with commercial prudence and allow for banking transit time. Because the cheques were routed in a manner that caused delayed presentation beyond the permissible period, the complaints were unsustainable and the Magistrate's process was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the process issued on complaints under section 138 was sustainable when the cheques were not presented to the bank on which they were drawn within the prescribed period.

Analysis: Section 138 requires that the cheque be presented to the bank on which it is drawn within six months from the date of drawing. Presentation through another bank does not satisfy the statutory requirement if the cheque reaches the drawer's bank only after the limitation period. The holder of the cheque is expected to act with commercial prudence and take into account the time required for banking channels to process and forward the instrument. On the facts, the presentation route adopted resulted in the cheques being sent beyond the permissible period, making the complaints unsustainable.

Conclusion: The process issued by the Magistrate was quashed and the complaints could not proceed under section 138.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under section 138, the cheque must be presented to the bank on which it is drawn within the statutory period, and delayed presentation through an intermediary bank defeats the prosecution.

---