Successive dishonour of the same cheque can create a fresh cause of action if statutory requirements are satisfied.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is explained as allowing a fresh cause of action when the same cheque is re-presented within its validity and dishonoured again, provided the statutory notice and complaint requirements are met. The commentary adopts a purposive reading of Chapter XVII, treating the criminal remedy as an additional means to enhance cheque acceptability and protect the payee or holder in due course. It also notes that this approach does not permit repeated convictions on the same cheque, because protections against double jeopardy remain available under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Constitution.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, successive causes of action can arise on repeated presentation and dishonour of the same cheque, and whether a complaint may be founded on a later dishonour even if no complaint was filed on the earlier dishonour.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Chapter XVII shows that the criminal remedy is an additional remedy intended to enhance the acceptability of cheques and to protect the payee or holder in due course. Section 138 permits presentation of the cheque within the prescribed period, and clause (c) of the proviso read with Section 142(b) governs the time for complaint after a cause of action arises. The Court held that nothing in the language of the provisions expressly bars a fresh cause of action if the cheque remains unpaid and is presented again within its validity. It rejected the view that strict construction of a penal provision requires limiting prosecution to the first default, and applied a purposive reading that furthers the remedy and suppresses the mischief. It further noted that repeated prosecutions on the same cheque are prevented by Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, so recognition of successive causes of action does not mean repeated convictions on the same cheque.

Conclusion: Successive causes of action on the same cheque are permissible, and a complaint based on a fresh dishonour is maintainable if the statutory requirements are satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The earlier contrary view was disapproved, the later complaint was held maintainable in law, and the criminal miscellaneous case was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a cheque remains within its validity and is dishonoured again, the payee or holder in due course may, upon compliance with Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, found a complaint on the fresh cause of action; the statute does not confine the criminal remedy to the first dishonour alone.

---