TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no such addressee and a second one on 13-3-1998, after the third presentation which really reached the addressee, the respondent, the Court below found that the complaint was filed beyond 30 days of the date when the cause of action arose, with reference to the first among these two notices. The Court below also found that there was difference in ink and handwriting with regard to the filling of the cheque as well as signature there on. 2. As regards the second ground now it is now trite that when the cheque is admittedly signed by the drawer irrespective of the fact that, that had been filled up by any other person putting the date and amount, the drawer cannot get absolved of the liability under Section 138 because he has to rebut t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n clause (b) of Section 142. 5. The accused relies on the decision in Kannan v. Kothandan 1995 (2) KLT 75. The evidence in the case on hand shows that the complainant had sent the first notice after second presentation on 13-1-1998. Though, it did not reach the addressee, he had contacted the addressee and told him that the cheque had bounced. Therefore, there was notice to the drawer/accused by words from the complainant preceded by a notice, which he did not receive. Therefore the cause of action had arisen within 30 days of communicating that fact orally by the complainant to the accused. True, he would have been right in saying so, if he had been aware of the contents of the first notice sent on 13 M 998. Unfortunately, going by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his failure to make the payment within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice served in accordance with Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138. Of course, as held by the Supreme Court that necessarily means that for similar failure after service of fresh notice on subsequent dishonour the drawer cannot 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. 7. In this case the first notice did not reach the drawer. In such circumstances the cause of action in this case had arisen only with reference to the receipt of second notice issued on 13-3-1998. Therefore, the complaint has been filed within the time. 8. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
