Usha Mehra, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Madan Mohan, the petitioner herein, hasassailed the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 6/12/1991 on the ground that the Magistrate fell in grave error in observing that thecheque issued by the drawer cannot be presented more than once in order toattract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Acjt (hereinafter called as the "act" ). ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, the brieffacts are that the petitioner along with his son is the owner of the premisessituated in 0-4, Swastik Bhawan, Ranjit Nagar, Commeral Complex, nearsatyam Cinema, New Delhi-8. The respondents took this commercialpremises of the petitioner on tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 137. 00persquare feet made of Rs. 12. 00. The rent for structure of the premises ofre. l. 00 as the rental for the fittings and fixtures therein. The tenancy wasmade for 33 months. The rent agreed to be paid every month came tors. 3,744. 00andrs. 624. 00. The respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 7,488. 00as an initial payment and thereafter the payment became irregular even thecheque when presented was dishonoured with the remarks "refer to drawer". It is further the case of the petitioner that from February to September, 1991,the rent became due and payable to the tune of Rs. 39,000. 00 out of which therespondent paid on different dates a sum of Rs. 19. 656. 00 leaving a balancedue and payable. As part discharge of the above liability, the respondentissued a cheque on 3/07/1991 for a sum of Rs. 19,344. 00drawn onpunjab National Bank, Tropical Building, New Delhi. The cheque wasreturned unpaid by the Banker with the remarks "refer to drawer" on 1 7/07/1991. The petitioner approached the respondent and informed himabout the dishonouring of the cheque and demanded payment and on requestof the respondent to re-present the cheque, the petitioner did it and again thecheque was dishonoured and the reason given by the bank was "insufficientfunds". It is in this background a notice was given and thereafter complaintwas filed under Section 138 of the Act read with. Section 420 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate took the view that so far as Section 420 Indian Penal Code is concerned, since there was no inducement, so the provisions ofsection 420 J. P. C. w (re not attracted. Section 420 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate took the view that so far as Section 420 Indian Penal Code is concerned, since there was no inducement, so the provisions ofsection 420 J. P. C. w (re not attracted. As regard the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, it observed that the same does not contemplate morethan one presentation and repeated cause of action and therefore dismissedthe complaint. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. U. K. Sukhija, Counsel for the petitioner andmr. R. K. Bahrifor the State. Section 138 of the Act Jays down that if acheque issued pursuant to a debt or other liability is returned to the bankunpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of thataccount is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amountarranged to be paid from that account, the drawer shall be liable to bepunished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, orwith fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque, or with both Acheque can be presented to the bank within a period of six months from thedate on which it was drawn or with the period of its validity, whichever isearlier as laid down in Clasue (a) of the proviso to Section 138. Clause (b)of the said Proviso lays down that the payee or the holder in due course maymake a demand for payment of the amount covered by the cheque by givinga notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of thedishonour of the cheque. Clause (c) of the proviso enables the drawer ofthe cheque to make payment of the amount covered by the cheque to thepayee within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice under Clause (b ). It is also provided under Section 142 of the Act that the complaint has to be filed within a period of one month from the date on which the cause of action arises. ( 5 ) THE scheme of Sections 138 and 142 of the Act shows that thecheque can be presented to the bank within a period of 6 months from thedate of its issuance or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. ( 5 ) THE scheme of Sections 138 and 142 of the Act shows that thecheque can be presented to the bank within a period of 6 months from thedate of its issuance or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. Clause (a) of Proviso to Section 138 does not lay down as to how many ornumber of times a cheque can be presented to the bank. It only talks aboutthe presentation of the cheque within a period of six months. I find forcein the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that the legislature neverintended that on the first default the drawer of the cheque should be draggedto litigation. In fact in commercial transactions circumstances may arisewhere the drawer on the cheque being dishonoured may request the draweeto represent the same and in order to keep the cordial relations with regardto business transactions the drawee may re-present the cheque again andencash the same. Therefore, to draw the presumption that the legislatureintended that the cheque can only be presented once to my mind is not acorrect position of the law and in this regard I am supported by the decisionof the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Richard Samson Sherrat v. Sudhir Kumar Sanghi and Another, reported in 1992 (2) Crimes Vol. 2 page 150where it was held that when the statute has not laid down limitation, on thenumber of times that a cheque may be presented within the period of sixmonths or any shorter period under Clause (a) of Proviso to Section 138, itwill not be desirable to read into the said clause any such restriction as tonumber of times a cheque may be presented. Similar view was followed bythe Kerala High Court in the case of Ravindranathan v. Hussain, reported inii (1992) CCR2129 where it was observed that the Act does not compel thepetitioner to issue a notice immediately upon dishonour. Subject to theouter limit prescribed, there can be representation of the cheque and thecause of the action for the complaint would arise only when pursuant to thedishonour, notice was issued and there was refusal/failure to pay. ( 6 ) IN view of my above discussion. I set aside the impugned orderand remand the case to the Magistrate concerned to try it in accordancewith law.