Cheque dishonour notice timing and Magistrate jurisdiction upheld; single complaint for multiple cheques not quashed.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court held that notice was not required within fifteen days of the first dishonour where the cheques were re-presented and notice followed the last dishonour within the statutory period; the complaint was therefore not defective on that ground. The Court also held that a Metropolitan Magistrate's jurisdiction was not ousted by the sentencing limit, because the Criminal Procedure Code permits forwarding the matter if a higher punishment is considered necessary. A single complaint covering 11 dishonoured cheques was not shown to cause prejudice, so quashing was refused and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notice under clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had to be issued within fifteen days of the first dishonour of the cheques, thereby defeating the complaint when notice was issued after the last dishonour; (ii) whether the Metropolitan Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the sentence prescribed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with the sentencing powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) whether one complaint could be maintained in respect of dishonour of 11 cheques.

Issue (i): Whether notice under clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had to be issued within fifteen days of the first dishonour of the cheques, thereby defeating the complaint when notice was issued after the last dishonour.

Analysis: The statutory requirement was held not to compel notice within fifteen days of the first dishonour. Re-presentation of the cheques within the permissible outer limit was accepted, and the cause of action arose only after dishonour followed by notice within fifteen days and failure to pay. Since the notice was issued within fifteen days of the last dishonour, the complaint was not liable to fail on this ground.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the sentence prescribed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with the sentencing powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The sentencing limitation of a Magistrate did not oust jurisdiction, because section 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provided that if a Magistrate considered a higher punishment necessary, the matter could be forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to whom he was subordinate. The jurisdictional challenge therefore failed.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether one complaint could be maintained in respect of dishonour of 11 cheques.

Analysis: No prejudice to the petitioners was shown from the filing of one complaint relating to all 11 cheques. The Court left it open to the petitioners to raise the point before the trial court during trial, but no basis for quashing the proceedings was made out.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petition for quashing failed in its entirety and the criminal proceedings arising from the cheque dishonour complaint were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, notice need not follow the first dishonour if re-presentation and notice after the last dishonour are within the statutory time limits, and a Magistrate's jurisdiction is not defeated merely because the possible sentence may exceed the Magistrate's direct sentencing power.

---