V. B. Bansal ( 1 ) M/s. CONTINENTAL Carriers Pvt. Ltd. have filed this revision petition against theorder dated 6. 8. 92 of Shri JPS Malik, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, videwhich the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant against respondents 1 to3 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO to usthe act ) was dismissed. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that thepetitioner filed a complaint against the respondents 1 to 3 alleging that in Februrary1991 in pursuance of a request by the aforesaid respondents their export consignment of ready made garments for sending to Birmingham, London was got clearedfrom the Customs Department and for doing that job a bill for Rs. 58,691. 00 wasraised against respondent No. 1, of which respondents 2and 3 are partners. It wasalso claimed that a Cheque dated 17. 7. 1991 for Rs. 58. 216. 00drawn on Indian Bank,overseas Branch, New Delhi, for payment to the petitioner/complainant wasissued from the account of Oberoi Child Wear of which respondent No. 2 was theproprietor and that the cheque, on being presented, was dishonoured with theremarks not arranged for . ( 3 ) IT was further pleaded that on a request made by the petitioner therespondents gave instructions to the petitioner to represent the cheque in the firstweek of September 1991 with an assurance that it would be negotiated, but whenpresented again was dishonoured on 12. 9. 1991. Further averments made in theplaint were that a statutory notice dated 21. 9. 1991 was got issued to the respondents which they acknowledged but failed to make the payment and, thus, thecomplaint. ( 4 ) THIS complaint was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate videthe impugned order holding that no notice was given to the respondents within 15days of the dishonour of the cheque when presented first and there was noprovision for presenting the cheque for a second time. ( 5 ) I have heard Shri G. R. Chhabria, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shriharish Malhotra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3; and Ms. Seema Gulati,learned Counsel for respondent No. 4. ( 5 ) I have heard Shri G. R. Chhabria, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shriharish Malhotra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3; and Ms. Seema Gulati,learned Counsel for respondent No. 4. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no restrictionunder Section 138 of the Act as to the number of times a cheque can be presentedand the cheque having been presented by the petitioner within the validity periodand 15 days notice having been served upon the respondents 1 to 3, the learnedmetropolitan Magistrate has gravely erred in dismissing the complaint on thisground. A prayer has, thus, been made for accepting the revision and remandingthe same to the Trial Court for proceeding further in accordance with law. ( 7 ) A bare reading of Clause (a) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act clearlyindicates that there is no restriction as to how many number of times a cheque canbe presented to the Bank. The cheque can be presented any number of times withinthe period of its validity and the only requirement for filing a complaint undersection 138 of the Act is that a notice has to be given about the cheque having beendishonoured within 15 days of such dishonour. ( 8 ) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in support of his view, has placedreliance upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court. However, we have a clearjudgement of this Court in case Madan Mohan v. K. K. Menon (1993 R. L. R. 119) andstallion Shox (P) Ltd. Co. and Ors. v. Auto Tensions (P) Ltd. (51 (1993) D. L. T. 161 ). The same has been the view of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Richard Samsonsherrat v. Sudhir Kamar Sanghi and Another ( 1992 (2) Crimes 150 ). Keeping in viewall these facts, the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that, in fact, no primafade case is made out against the respondent No. 3 even from the averments madein the complaint. The matter has, in fact, to be decided by the learned Metropolitanmagistrate and there is no occasion for me to express any opinion on merits,learned Trial Court has to proceed further in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid discussion the revision petition is allowed and theimpugned order is set aside. The matter has, in fact, to be decided by the learned Metropolitanmagistrate and there is no occasion for me to express any opinion on merits,learned Trial Court has to proceed further in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid discussion the revision petition is allowed and theimpugned order is set aside. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate would proceedfurther with the complaint in accordance with law. Complainant to appear beforethe learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 19. 5. 1994.