https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295595 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. en-us Mon, 19 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:50:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295595 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295595