Section 138 liability arises on failure to pay after notice, so Article 20(1) does not bar prosecution.

Prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is triggered by the drawer's failure to make payment within the statutory period after receipt of notice, not by the earlier drawing of the cheque. On that analysis, where the omission to pay occurred after Section 138 came into force, Article 20(1) of the Constitution did not bar the complaint. The complaint could not be quashed merely because the cheques had been issued before commencement of the provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution for dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India because the cheques were issued before the provision came into force.

Analysis: The offence under Section 138 is not complete on mere drawing of the cheque. The section, read with its proviso, makes the failure to make payment within fifteen days of receipt of notice the act that completes the offence. Section 142(b) also links cognizance to the cause of action arising under clause (c) of the proviso, confirming that the relevant default is the omission to pay after notice. Since the proscribed omission occurred after Section 138 had come into force, the prosecution was not for an act completed before the law was in force. The objection based on territorial jurisdiction was not finally decided in these proceedings.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not hit by Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and the complaint could not be quashed on the ground that the cheques were issued before commencement of Section 138.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the relevant commission of offence occurs on the drawer's failure to pay within the statutory period after notice, not on the earlier drawing of the cheque.

---