Limitation under cheque dishonour law: a valid demand notice creates one cause of action; repeat presentation cannot revive it.

A valid demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose when the notice identified the cheque, recorded dishonour for insufficiency of funds, demanded payment with additional charges, and warned of legal action. Service of that notice triggered a fifteen-day period for payment, and on non-payment the cause of action accrued for filing the complaint within one month under Section 142(b). A second presentation of the same cheque and a second notice did not create a fresh cause of action. As no condonation of delay was shown, the complaint was held to be time-barred and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The communication dated 26.03.2007 constituted a valid notice of demand because it identified the cheque, stated that it had been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, required payment of the amount with additional charges, and warned of legal action if payment was not made. Once such notice was served, the drawer had fifteen days to make payment and, on failure, the cause of action arose for filing the complaint. The complaint had to be filed within one month of that cause of action under Section 142(b). A second presentation of the same cheque and a second notice could not create a fresh cause of action. No application for condonation of delay was shown to have been made.

Conclusion: The complaint was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and was liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act gives rise to a single cause of action, and a complaint must be filed within the statutory period unless delay is duly condoned; successive presentations of the same cheque cannot create a fresh cause of action.

---