Supreme Court of India

MSR Leathers v S. Palaniappan

(2013) 1 SCC 17720121 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Cheques were dishonoured and a demand notice was given, but no complaint was filed. The cheques were presented again, dishonoured again, and a fresh notice was given before the complaint.
Issue
Whether a prosecution under S.138 can be based on a second or later dishonour of the same cheque.
Held
There is no bar to presenting a cheque more than once within its validity. Each dishonour followed by a statutory notice and failure to pay gives a fresh cause of action, so a complaint can rest on a later dishonour. The earlier contrary view in Sadanandan Bhadran was overruled.
Principle
A S.138 prosecution may be based on a successive dishonour after a fresh notice.
Cite this

Facts

  • Cheques were dishonoured and a demand notice was given, but no complaint was filed. The cheques were presented again, dishonoured again, and a fresh notice was given before the complaint.

Issue

  1. Whether a prosecution under S.138 can be based on a second or later dishonour of the same cheque.

Held

  • There is no bar to presenting a cheque more than once within its validity. Each dishonour followed by a statutory notice and failure to pay gives a fresh cause of action, so a complaint can rest on a later dishonour. The earlier contrary view in Sadanandan Bhadran was overruled.

Cite this

Citation

MSR Leathers v S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132373854/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.