SADANANDAN BHADRAN versus MADHAVAN SUNIL KUMAR

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 178 · Decided: 28-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SADANANDANBHADRAN 
v. 
MADHAVAN SUNIL KUMAR 
AUGUST 28, 1998 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Oiminal Law : 
Negotiable bzstn1111e11ts Act, 1881 : Sections 138 and 142. 
Clzeque--Dislwnour of-Non-payment-Filing of complaint-Cause of 
action-Arising of-Held : Cause of action arises only once-A fresh cause 
of action would not arise 011 each presentation of cheque and its 
dishonow~A cheque can be presented any number of times dwing its period 
of validity--But once notice is issued and pay111e11t not received withi11 15 days 
D of the receipt of the notice, payee has to avail that ve1y cause of actio11 and 
file co111plaint-Complia11t has to be filed 1111der S. 142(b) within one month 
i111111ediately foil owing the day 011 which the period of 15 days from the date 
of receipt of the first 11otice by the drawer e;.pires. 
E 
Words a11d Phrases : 
"Came of action''-Memzing of-!11 the conte;.·t of S. 142(b) of the 
Negotiable !11stnune11ts Act, 1881. 
The Respondent handed over a cheque to the appellant in liquidation 
F of the appellant's loan. The cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient 
funds. The appellant then sent a lawyer's notice to the respondent calling 
upon him to pay the amount. The respondent requested more time to pay 
the amount. Therefore, the appellants did not proceed further. As the 
respondent did not keep up his promise the appellant presented the che11ue 
once again. This time also the cheque was dishonoured for want of suffi-
G cient funds. The appellant sent another notice to the respondent demand-
ing the payment, but the respondent failed to make the payment. The 
appellant then filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 138 
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After entering appearance at the 
trial the respondent contended that the complaint was not maintainable, 
H as there could not be more than one cause of action in respect of a single 
178 
S.BHADRAN v. M.S. KUMAR 
179 
cheque. The Magistrate accepted this contention and the respondent was A 
acquitted. The High Court upheld the order of the Magistrate. Hence this 
appeal. 
.. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable B 
Instruments Act, 1881 does not put any embargo upon the payee to 
successively present a dishonoured cheque during the period of its validity. 
This apart, in course of business transaction it is not uncommon for a 
cheque being returned due to insufficient funds or similar such reasons 
and being presented again by the payee after sometime, on his own volition C 
or at the request of the drawer, in expectation that it would be encashed. 
The primary interest of the payee is to get his money and not prosecution 
of the drawer, recourse to which, normally, is taken out of compulsion and 
not choice. For the above reasons it must be held that a cheque can be 
presented any number of times during the period of its validity. On each 
presentation of the cheque and its dishonour a fresh right - and not cause D 
of action - accrues in his favour. He may, therefore, without taking pre-
emptory action in exercise of his such right under Section 138(h) of the 
Act, go on presenting the cheque so as to enable him to exercise such right 
at any point of time during the validity of the cheque. But, once he gives a 
notice under Section 138(b) he forfeits such right for in case of failure of E 
the drawer to pay the money within tbe stipulated time he would be liable 
for the offence and the cause of action for filing the complaint will arise. 
The period of one month for filing the complaint will be reckoned from the 
day immediately following the day on which the period of fifteen days from 
the date of receipt of the notice by the drawer expires. 
[183-G-H; 184-A; 186-E-G] 
2.1. In a generic and wide sense (as in Section 20 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908) 'cause of action' means every facts which it is necessary 
to establish to support a right or obtain a judgment. Viewed in that context 
F 
the following facts are rec1uired to be proved to successfully prosecute the G 
drawer for an offence under Section 138 of the Act : 
(a) that the cheque was drawn for payment of an amount of money 
for discharge of a debt/liability and the cheque was dishonoured; 
(b) that the cheque was presented within the prescribed period; 
H 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A . 
(c) that the payee made a demand for payment of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.