TAMEESHWAR VAISHNAV versus RAMVISHAL GUPTA

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 08-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010) 1 S.C.R. 204 
TAMEESHWAR VAISHNAV 
v. 
RAMVISHAL GUPTA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2010) 
JANUARY 8, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss.138(b) and 142 -
Notice u/s 138(b) - Receipt of, by drawer of cheque - Drawee 
C of cheque failing to take action within stipulated time u/s 138 
- Entitlement of the drawee of cheque to issue Second Notice 
in respect of same cheque and to file complaint u/s 138 -
Held: Not entitled - Cause of action for a complaint uls 138 
arises only once, with the issuance of notice after dishonour 
o of cheque and receipt thereof. 
The question for consideration in the present 
appeals was, whether after the notice u/s 138(b) of 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is received by the 
drawer of the cheque, the payee/holder of the cheque 
E having failed to take action on the basis of the notice 
within the period prescribed u/s 138, is entitled to send a 
fresh notice in respect of the same cheque and file 
complaint u/s 138. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A cheque may be presented several times 
within the period of its validity, but the cause of action 
for a complaint under Section 138 of the Act arises but 
G once, with the issuance of notice after dishonour of the 
cheque and the receipt thereof by the drawer. [Para 15] 
[209-F-H] 
Prem Chand Vijay Kumar vs. Yashpal Singh and Anr. 
(2005) 4 sec 417, relied on. 
H 
204 
TAMEESHWAR VAISHNAV v. RAMVISHAL GUPTA 
205 
S.L Constructions vs. Alapati Srinivasa Rao (2009) 1 A 
sec 500, distinguished. 
1.2. In the facts of the instant case, the complaints 
were filed beyond the period of limitation and the 
Magistrate erred in taking cognizance on the. complaints 
8 
filed on the basis of the second notices. (Para 17] (210-
E-F] 
Case Law Reference: 
(2005) 4 sec 417 
Relied on 
Para 15 
c 
(2009) 1 SCC 500 
Distinguished 
Para 15 
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 46 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.3.2008 of the High 
D 
Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 
178 of 2007. 
WITH 
Crl. Appeal No. 47 of 2010. 
Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Mahesh Pandey, Mridula Ray 
Bharadwaj for the Appellant. 
V. Sridhar Reddy, AS. Rao, Ram Swarup Sharma for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Delay of 31 days and 39 days in 
re-filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned. 
2. Leave granted. 
E 
F 
G 
3. The short point for decision in these Appeals is whether 
after the notice issued under clause (b) of Section 138 of the 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 
"the Act"), is received by the drawer of the cheque, the payee 
H 
or holder of the cheque, who does not take any action on the 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 
A basis of such notice within the period prescribed under Section 
138 of the Act, is entitled to send a fresh notice in respect of 
the same cheque and, thereafter, proceed to file a complaint 
under Section 138 of the Act. 
B 
4. In S.L.P.(Crl.) No.6676 of 2008 arising out of Criminal 
Case No.399 of 2006 pending before the Additional Chief 
Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, the Respondent had filed a 
complaint under Section 138 of the Act, for dishonour of a 
cheque dated 16th March, 2006, bearing No.0864961 for 
Rs.40,000/- drawn on the Bank of Maharashtra, Khairagarh 
C Branch, in favour of the Respondent. S.L.P. (Crl.) ~o.6593 of 
2008 is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 
27th March, 2008, in Crl. Revision No.130 of 2006 arising out 
of Criminal Case No.339 of 2006 pending with the Additional 
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, in respect of a similar 
D cheque dated 20th March, 2006, bearing No.0864962 
amounting to Rs.40,000/- drawn on the Bank of Maharashtra, 
Khairagarh Branch, in favour of the Respondent. As stated 
hereinabove, both the said cheques were dishonoured on the 
ground of insufficient funds. The cheque issued on 20th March, 
E 2006, bearing No.0864962 was dishonoured on 22nd March, 
2006, on the ground of insufficient funds. Similarly, cheque 
bearing No.0864961 dated 16th .March, 2006, was 
dishonoured on 16th March, 2006. Consequently, the 
Respondent issued notices as contemplated under Clause (b) 
F of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act asking the Appellant 
to make payment of the cheque amounts within 15 days. 
Although, the notice was duly served upon the Appellant, the 
Respondent di

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