TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a cheque could be presented again after the first dishonour without forfeiting the complainant's right to prosecute under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; (ii) Whether the complaint was maintainable when the statutory notice was issued beyond thirty days from the complainant's knowledge of the second dishonour.
Issue (i): Whether a cheque could be presented again after the first dishonour without forfeiting the complainant's right to prosecute under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Analysis: The statutory scheme permits more than one presentation of the same cheque during its validity period. The earlier dishonour does not bar a fresh presentation, and the right to initiate proceedings is governed by the cause of action arising after the later dishonour, notice, and failure to pay. The complainant's decision not to proceed on the first dishonour did not extinguish the statutory right to present the cheque again.
Conclusion: The second presentation of the cheque was legally permissible.
Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was maintainable when the statutory notice was issued beyond thirty days from the complainant's knowledge of the second dishonour.
Analysis: For an offence under Section 138 to be complete, the cheque must be dishonoured, notice demanding payment must be issued within thirty days of receipt of information regarding dishonour, and payment must not be made within fifteen days of receipt of notice. On the admitted facts, the complainant became aware of the second dishonour on the date of presentation itself, yet issued notice after the statutory period had expired. As the mandatory notice requirement was not satisfied, the complaint could not be sustained. The proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were therefore liable to be allowed, and the complaint was liable to be quashed.
Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory requirements governing prosecution for cheque dishonour.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for cheque dishonour, a fresh presentation of the cheque is permissible, but a complaint is maintainable only if the statutory notice is issued within the prescribed time from the complainant's receipt of information about the dishonour and all conditions precedent to the cause of action are satisfied.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
