JUDGMENT - B.U. WAHANE, J.:--By this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant/accused Shri Pawankumar Agrawal seeks direction from this Court to quash the proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati in a Regular Criminal Case No. 233 of 1989 and quash and set aside the order dated 12-12-1989 issuing process. 2. It is not disputed that the applicant/accused owes some amount to the non-applicant No. 1. It is also not disputed that the accused/applicant had issued 4 cheques for different amounts on 30-6-1989, 15-7-1989 and on 23-7-1989. 3. Before proceeding with the discussion, Shri Kasat the learned Counsel for the applicant did not press the validity of the notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the proceedings under section 420 and 471 of the I.P.C. The submissions of Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the applicant are very restricted and he formulated the issue as : Whether the cause of action survives or the offence is committed after the representation of the same cheque which was earlier dis-honoured? 4. According to the applicant, he issued four cheques detailed as under : Sr. No. Cheque No. Amount Date. 1. 1691041 Rs. 1,10,467/- 30.6.89. 2. 1691042 Rs. 50,160/- 15-7-89. 3. 1691043 Rs. 84,000/- 23-7-89. 4. 1691044 Rs. 56,233/- 30-7-1989. These cheques were presented by the non-applicant in the Bank of Maharashtra, Jawahar Road Branch, Amravati on the due dates and all these cheques were dishonoured. Though the cheques were dishonoured no action was taken by the non-applicant i.e. issued notice under the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and even after non-compliance no case was instituted against the applicant/accused. 5. Subsequently, according to the applicant/accused, all the four cheques referred to above were again presented in the Bank of Maharashtra, Jawahar Road, Branch Amravati on 6-11-1989 and again they were dishonoured. Thereafter the notice was issued and the complaint was filed on 30-11-1989 against the applicant/accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and under section 420 and 471 of I.P.C. 6. Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that as the non-applicant has failed to take any action against the applicant/accused when all the four cheques were dis-honoured earlier, on presentation of those cheques again on 6-11-1989 and no cause of action is reviewed. 7. Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that as the non-applicant has failed to take any action against the applicant/accused when all the four cheques were dis-honoured earlier, on presentation of those cheques again on 6-11-1989 and no cause of action is reviewed. 7. There is specific averment in para 8 of the complaint to the effect that "looking to all these facts and circumstances, the complainant approached the accused in the first week of November 1989 and demanded the outstanding amount due to it from him and upon which the accused instructed the complainant to re-present the abovesaid four cheques mentioned in para 3 hereinabove, on 6th November, 1989. The said cheques when presented, were returned dishonoured on 6th November, 89 itself because the amount of money standing to the credit of the accused in his account was insufficient to honour the said cheques." 8. According to Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused, he denied the allegations by replying the notice. 9. To substantiate the submissions, Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused relied upon the case of (Kumaresan v. Ameerppa)1, 1991(1) K.L.T. 893 (D.B.). Their Lordships observed that : "From the scheme of the provisions in Chapter XVII of the Act two features loom large. First is that more than one cause of action on the same cheque is not contemplated or envisaged. Second is, institution of prosecution cannot be made after one month of the cause of action. If more than one cause of action on the same cheque can be created, its consequence would be that the same drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted and even convicted again and again on the strength of the same cheque. Legislature cannot be imputed with the intention to subject a drawer of cheque to repeated prosecutions and convictions on the strength of one cheque." 9. There is no dispute regarding the observations made by Their Lordships in the case cited supra. However, the facts of the case which was before Their Lordships and the present case are altogether different. In the case which was before Their Lordships, the same cheque was presented by the drawer and on both the occasions it was dishonoured. There is no dispute regarding the observations made by Their Lordships in the case cited supra. However, the facts of the case which was before Their Lordships and the present case are altogether different. In the case which was before Their Lordships, the same cheque was presented by the drawer and on both the occasions it was dishonoured. From the facts, it is not clear that whether before presenting the cheque on 2nd occasion, the party was apprised and the person who issued the cheque has informed that they can present the cheque in the Bank. However, in the case before me in para 8 of the complaint, reproduced earlier, it is specifically submitted by the complainant that in the first week of November, 1989 he demanded the dues from the applicant accused and he directed to represent all the four cheques in the Bank. Therefore, the cheques were presented 2nd time and disnonoured. Considering this fact, the case cited by Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused is of no assistance to him. 10. Thus, the only question remains that whether in the month of November 1989 (in the first week) the non-applicant/complainant approached and demanded the money from the applicant/accused and the applicant/accused directed him to re-present all the four cheques or not is the question to be determined at the time of recording the evidence. This aspect can not be a issue to be decided under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Thus, there is no substance in the submission of Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused. The application is dismissed. Application dismissed. *****