TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (8) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t initiate any further proceeding but as the respondent did not keep his promise he presented the cheque in the bank once again on 04.05.1991. This time also the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Another notice dated 09.05.1991 was then served upon the respondent demanding payment of the amount but he failed to make the payment. The appellant then filed a complaint against the respondent on 30.06.1991 Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short). On that complaint cognizance was taken and the respondent was summoned to face the trial. After entering appearance the respondent filed an application stating that in view of the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Kumaresan v. Ameerappa MANU/KE/0092/1991, (since over-ruled by a Full Bench of that Court in M/s. S.K.D.L. Fireworks Industries v. K.V. Sivarama Krishnan, MANU/KE/0150/1995 wherein it was held that there could not be more than one cause of action in respect of a single cheque, the complaint was not maintainable. The trying magistrate accepted the contention of the respondent and acquitted him. Against the order of acquittal the appellant moved the High Court but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uate safeguards to prevent harassment of honest drawers. Section 138 of the Act reads as under: "Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless - (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be more than one cause of action for prosecution. 6. The next question that falls for our determination is whether dishonour of the cheque on each occasion of its presentation gives rise to a fresh cause of action within the meaning of Section 142(b) of the Act. Section 142 reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC, 1973 (a) no court shall take congnizance of any offence punishable Under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138; (c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable Under Section 138." 7. From a plain reading of the above Section it is manifest that a competent Court can take cognizance of a written complaint of an offence Under Section 138 if it is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. (emphasis supplied) 8. In a generic and wide s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be liable for any offence nor can the first offence be treated as non est so as to give the payee a right to file a complaint treating the second offence as the first one. At that stage it will not be a question of waiver of the right of the payee to prosecute the drawer but of absolution of the drawer of an offence, which stands already committed by him and which cannot be committed by him again. 10. The other impediment to the acceptance of the concept of successive causes of action is that it will-make the period of limitation under Clause (c) of Section 142 otiose, for, a payee who failed to file his complaint within one month and thereby forfeited his right to prosecute the drawer, can circumvent the above limitative clause by filing a complaint on the basis of a fresh presentation of the cheque and its dishonour. Since in the interpretation of statutes the Court always presumes that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that the every part should have effect the above conclusion cannot be drawn for, that will make the provision for limiting the period of making the complaint nugatory. 11. Now, the question is how ....