1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION Nos.2652 & 2653/BOTH OF 2007 (Deorao Shivram Ughade vs Vinayak Ganpatrao Chafle ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. .......................................................................................................................................................... Mr S R Deshpande, Adv. for applicant Mr. Amit Joshi, Adv. for Respondent CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE,J. DATED: 10 th August, 2009. Heard counsel for respective parties. 2. Mr. Amit Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent strongly objected to leave application filed under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that absolutely no case can be made out by the applicant herein to file appeal as the complaint itself was time- barred, in view of the evidence referred in detail in the impugned judgment and order. Moreover, my attention is invited to the ruling in the case of Sadanand Bhadran vs. Madhavan Sunil Kumar reported in AIR 1998 SC 3043 in which, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in relation to cause of action that a cheque can be presented any number of times during the period of its validity by payee. On each presentation of the cheque and its dishonour a fresh right – and not cause of action- accrues in his favour. He, may, therefore, without taking pre-emptory action in exercise of his such right under Cl.(b) of S.138, 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 Cl. of S. 138 he forfeits such right for in case of failure of the drawer to pay the money within the stipulated time he could be liable for the offence and the cause of action for filing the complaint will arise. Needless to say, the period of one month for filing the compliant will be reckoned from the 2 day immediately following the day on which the period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice by the drawer, expires. 3. Placing reliance upon these observations, the learned Advocate pointed out the impugned judgment and order particularly in para nos. 12 to 15 that accused had received the notice of demand on 29.2.2004, thus, cause of action for filing the case occurred to the complainant 15 days thereafter. Instead of doing that he (complainant) again deposited the cheque with Bank and finally sent notice (Exh.147) on 16.3.2004 through Advocate Dharaskar. Thus, no cause of action arise again by the said notice because the cause of action arose to the complainant by the notice already sent to the accused by complainant through Advocate and the said cause of action cannot be reviewed by the notice sent by Advocate Dharaskar. Therefore, the present case is barred by limitation. 4. I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the observations which were made by sound judgment placing reliance on settled legal position. That being so, I do not find any arguable case in favour of the applicant for leave to appeal. Hence leave to appeal is refused. JUDGE. sahare