Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a cheque may be presented successively within its validity period and, upon dishonour on the second presentation, whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable when the statutory notice is issued after the second return.
Analysis: Successive presentation of a cheque within its validity period is permissible under proviso (a) to Section 138. The statutory scheme also permits issuance of notice within the prescribed time after receipt of information regarding dishonour, and the Court applied the settled principle that a complaint may be founded on a second or successive dishonour. The Court distinguished the cited authority on the facts and held that the object of the legislation would be defeated by a narrow reading that bars prosecution merely because the cheque was previously returned unpaid. Since the cheque was again presented within validity and notice was issued within the statutory period after the fresh dishonour, no legal infirmity was made out for quashing.
Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on this ground and the challenge to the complaint and summoning order failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be maintained on the basis of a second or successive dishonour of the cheque, provided the cheque is presented within its validity period and the statutory notice is issued in accordance with the proviso to Section 138.