THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.158 of 2002 DATED: 07-04-2010 ORDER: Complainant is the petitioner herein and he assails the order, dated 03-10-2001, made in Crl.M.P.No.2365 of 2001 in C.C.No.622 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, whereby the respondents herein were discharged under Section 251 Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the cheques that have been issued by the accused-respondents herein were dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 06-09-2000 and the same was received by the accused on 08-09-2000. Again, another notice was issued on 19-09-2000 and the same was also received by the accused-respondents on 27-09- 2000. Despite service of the said notices, as the said amounts have not been paid, taking the second notice into consideration, the present complaint has been filed pleading that the cause of action arose from the service of the first notice on 08-09-2000 and the complaint was filed beyond the period stipulated under Section 138 of the Act. Respondents filed the said application pleading discharge, as stated supra, and the said application was allowed. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. The order passed by the Court below is perfectly justified. In SADANANDAM BHADRAM v. V.MADHAVAN SUNEEL KUMAR[1] the apex Court has taken the view that the cause of action arises only once i.e. from the date of the service of the first notice. 5. In the said judgment, it is further held that a cheque can be presented any number of times during its validity, but notices cannot be issued so many times. The first notice is dated 06-09-2000 and the same was served on 08-09-2000 and if that fact is taken into consideration the complaint should have been filed within a period of thirty days, whereas the petitioner/complainant has taken the second notice into consideration and calculated the period from the service of second notice on 27-09-2000. In my considered view, the said calculation is not correct and the cause of action arose only from the date of service of the first notice on 08-09-2000. Hence, the order passed by the Court below is justified and no interference is called for. There are no merits in this case. 6. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 07th April, 2010. Tsy [1] AIR 1998 SC 3043