:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 1714 OF 2000 Mr. R.A. Kandavelu. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Bagla Dandekar i/by Bagla Dandekar & Co. for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh More, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 15.4.2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard parties present. 2. This petition seeks to quash a complaint under Section-138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner under Section-138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that the complaint pertained to two cheques bearing Cheque No.067811 dated 25.2.1999 for an amount of Rs.5000/- and the second cheque bearing No.067812 dated 15.3.1999 for an amount of Rs.5000/-. Both these cheques were drawn on State Bank of India, Coimbatore Branch and were deposited for clearance on 21.8.1999 in the bank of the complainant. Both these cheques were returned dishonoured. The record indicates that the first cheque was received dishonoured with the remark "exceeds arrangement" :2: whereas the second cheque was received dishonoured along with bank memo dated 31.8.1999 with an endorsement to the effect that Cheque No.067811 is dated 25.2.1999 amount exceeds six months beyond value. Admittedly on issuance of notice, an amount of Rs.5000/- was forwarded by bank draft and the same was encashed. The complaint only alleges non payment of balance amount of Rs.5000/-. It is seen from the record that other cheque was presented to the payee bank after the period of 6-monhths. Proviso (a) to Section 138 requires that cheque has to be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. A Single Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Arunbhai N. Nanavati Vs. Jayaben Prahladbhai through her Power of Attorney and another reported in 2000 Bankman 484 has taken a view that presentment of cheque must be at the bank on which cheque is drawn i.e. paying bank and not to the collecting bank. 3. In fact, the complainant in the body of the complaint has wrongly stated that both the cheques were returned because they exceeded arrangement. In the reply however, the complainant has accepted the fact that one of the cheque came back with the memo saying that it exceeded six months payment value. In my view, therefore, this case is covered by the proviso (a) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The :3: Petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and stands disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)