Case: Infrastructure Leasing &amp; Fin. Service Ltd Vs. Delklip Investment Private Ltd. &amp; Others

1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by appellant - Infrastructure Leasing & Fin. Service Ltd against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.2226 of 2005(A). By the impugned judgment, the High Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant affirmed the order of acquittal dated 27 th September, 2005 passed by the 14th Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant company filed a complaint under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent No.1 - company and others. In the said case, the notice was issued to parties and after hearing the parties, the Court held that the limitation started from the date of the first notice and not from the second notice and the case being barred by limitation, the petition was dismissed and the accused were acquitted.3. Against the said judgment, the appellant preferred the appeal before the High Court wherein by impugned judgment dated 27th August, 2012, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the cause of action having already commenced after first presentation of cheque, subsequent presentation of cheque would not create another cause of action to the complainant. Notice was issued on respondents. In spite of the service of notice none appeared on behalf of the accused - respondents. Therefore, learned Amicus Curiae was appointed to assist the Court. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The very same issue was considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in "MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan"; - 2013 (1) SCC 177. The question relating to repeated presentation and dishonour of the cheque was considered. In the said case the Court held that the prosecution based upon the second or successive dishonour of the cheque is permissible so long as it satisfies all the requirements stipulated in proviso to Section 138.5. Same plea has been taken by learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal. In view of the decision rendered in "MSR Leathers" (Supra) we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment. We, accordingly set aside the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.2226 of 2005(A) and order dated 27th September, 2005 passed by 14th Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and remit the matter to trial court to proceed further in accordance with law after notice to the parties. 6.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5. Same plea has been taken by learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal. In view of the decision rendered in "MSR Leathers" (Supra) we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment. We, accordingly set aside the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.2226 of 2005(A) and order dated 27th September, 2005 passed by 14th Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and remit the matter to trial court to proceed further in accordance with law after notice to the parties.