TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er's case is concerned would be 04.03.2011 and not any subsequent dates. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error of law in rejecting the complaint filed by the Petitioner barred by limitation. - CRMP No. 1353 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2016 - P. Sam Koshy, J. For the Appellant: P.K. Patel, Advocate ORDER P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been preferred assailing the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar in Criminal Case No. 1915/2011 whereby the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the N.I. Act') got dismissed on account of it being filed beyond the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at so far as the service of notice dated 04.03.2011 is concerned there is no proof whatsoever whether the notice have been served upon the accused or not. Therefore it has to be presumed that the notice which has been issued on 01.06.2011 to be the service which has been effected upon the Respondent accused and therefore from the date of issuance of the notice dated 01.06.2011 the complaint case has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation under the N.I. Act. Therefore, the Court below was not justified in rejecting the complaint case holding to be barred by limitation. 5. Having considered the rival contention put forth by the Counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record what clearly reflects is the fact that adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing of the complaint limitation would be started from 04.03.2011 itself. 9. The Supreme Court in series of its decision by now have pointedly held that the repeated issuance of notice on dishonouring of cheque at the first instant would not give rise to the fresh cause of action for the purpose of filing of the complaint. 10. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh and Another 2005 (4) SCC 417 wherein in paragraph Nos. 8 to 11 the Supreme Court has held as under: 8. Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 does not put any embargo upon the payee to successively present a dishonoured cheque during the period of its validity. This ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of money for discharge of a debt/liability and the cheque was dishonoured; (b) that the cheque was presented within the prescribed period; (c) that the payee made a demand for payment of the money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer within the stipulated period; and (d) that the drawer failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Proceeding on the basis of the generic meaning of the term cause of action , certainly each of the above facts would constitute a part of the cause of action but clause (b) of Section 142 gives it a restrictive meaning, in that, it refers to only one fact which will give rise to the cause of action and that is the failure to make the payment within 15 days from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
