C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J. - (1.) CRIMINAL Petition No. 526 of 2000 is filed by the accused in C.C.No. 447 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Miryalaguda to quash the said proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (the Act) on the ground that notice of dishonour was not served on him.
(2.) CRIMINAL Petition No. 215 of 2002 is filed by the accused in C.C.No. 297 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada to quash the said proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 of the Act on the ground that notice of dishonour was not served on him. Since the point for decision in both the above petitions is the same they are being disposed of by this common order.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that a reading of Section 142 with Clause (b) of Proviso to Section 138 of the Act clearly establishes that cause of action for filing of a complaint arises only after service of the notice of dishonour of the cheque on the drawer of the cheque, and so it is clear that offence under Section 138 of the Act can be said to be committed only if payment is not made within 15 days of receipt of notice of dishonour and therefore proof of receipt of notice of dishonour on the drawer of the cheque is the Sine Qua Non for initiation of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, and since in both the cases notices of dishonour were admittedly not served on the petitioners, petitioners cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act and hence the criminal proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. Strong reliance is placed on V. Satyanarayana v. A.P. Travel and Tourism Department Corporation Limited1. B. Adhikari v. Ponraj2 and Central Bank of India v. Saxons Farms3, by the learned Counsel for petitioners in support of their above contention.;