S.L. CONSTRUCTION & ANR. versus ALAPATI SRINIVASA RAO & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 23-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 15 S.C.R. 51 
'( 
S.L. CONSTRUCTION & ANR. 
A 
v. 
ALAPATI SRINIVASA RAO & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1761 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 23, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.482 - Petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings 
ulss 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Dismissed c 
by High Court - HELD: Cheque was presented for third time 
within the stipulated .oeriod - What is prohibited is presentation 
of cheque after the prescribed period and not the number of 
times it is presented- The term 'cause of action' would mean D 
each of the facts required to be proved - The first notice 
having not been served and the second notice having been 
withdrawn in terms of the reply of the defaulters themselves, 
the complainant cannot be said to have committed any 
illegality in presenting the cheque for the third time and issuing E 
the third notice upon the defaulters - As per issuance of the 
cheque, non-payment thereof on presentation, issuance of 
a valid notice calling upon the drawer of the cheque to pay 
the amount in question and his failure to pay the complainant 
the amount within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt 
of a copy of the said notice, a cause of action arose for filing F 
a complaint petition - Cause of action for filing a complaint 
arose only once and not more than once - High Court cannot 
be said to be have committed any error in dismissing the 
petition - There is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed 
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 138 and 142 -
G 
Cause of action. [Para 21-22, 29-30, 32-33 and 35) [58-
C,D; 60-C,D,E,F,G; 61-C) 
Sadanand Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, [1998) 6 
sec 514, referred to. 
51 
H 
52 
SUPREME .COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh and Anr., 
B 
c 
[2005] 4 SCC 417 and Krishna Exports and Ors. v. Raju Das, 
[2004] 13 sec 498, cited. 
~· 
Case La1w Reference : 
[1998] 6 sec 514 
referred to 
Para 12 
[2005] 4 sec 417 
Cited 
Para 12 
[2004] 13 sec 498 
Cited 
Para 12 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1761 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.6:2006 of the 
High Court of Judicature of Andhra P·radesh at Hyderabad in 
Criminal. Petition No. 1365 of 2004. 
Anagha S. Desai, Satyajit A Desai and Venkateswara 
D 
Rao Anumolu for the Appellants. 
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Sidharth 
Patnaik and D. Bh.arathi Reddy for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
E 
ORDER 
Leave granted. 
1. Appellants before us are aggrieved by and dissatisfied 
with the judgment and order dated 7.6.2006 passed by a 
F 
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra 
Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby and whereunder a petition 
under Section 482 of t.he Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 
1973 praying for quashing the complaint proceedings under 
Section 138 and Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 
G before the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur taking 
cognizance against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable 
Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed. 
2. The factual matrix involved herein is hot in dispute. 
3. Appellants had entered into some business transactions 
H 
in regard to supply of certain materials with Respondent No.1. 
S.L.CONSTRUCTION & ANR. v. ALAPATI SRINIVASA 
53 
RAO & ANR. 
~ 
Appellant No.2 as a proprietor of appellant No.1 issued a 
A 
cheque for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in favour of the complainant-
respondent on or about 22.6.2003. Appellants contend that the 
said cheque was issued by way of security. 
4. The said cheque was presented in the bank on 
B 
23.6.2003. It was returned un-paid by the banker of the 
appellants on the ground of insufficient funds. 
5. Another notice was sent for service on the proprietor of 
S.L. Structures and Engineers on or about 8.7.2003. However, 
admittedly, the said notice was not served upon the appellants. c 
6. The said cheque was again presented before the bank 
on 30.8.2003, and was again dishonoured. 
7. Respondents served another notice upon the appellant 
No.2 describing him as a proprietor of S.L. Structures and 
D 
. 
" 
Engineers and calling upon him to pay the said amount of 
Rs . 
2 lacs within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. 
8. However, in response thereto the appellants' advocate 
by a letter dated 19.9.2003 pointed out that in stead and place 
of S.L. Structures and Engineers, the notice should have been 
E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.