Dalveer Bhandari ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th September, 1993 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Very short question of law arises in this case regarding interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138 reads as under : Section 138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. , of funds in the acount:-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an accoun maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficientto honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within in fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. " Similarly Section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act is reproduced as under: "cognizance of offences - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974),- (a) no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138; (c) no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under Section 138. " ( 2 ) IF both Section 138 and Section 142 of the Act are read together, the legislative intention becomes crystal clear, that a cheque can be presented to the bank within 68 a period of six months from the date of issuance or within the period of its validity and on each occasion when the cheque is presented in the bank and is dishonoured, the petitioner would get a fresh cause of action to file a complaint and the limitation would be computed from that point of time. ( 3 ). The same controversy has been a matter of interpretation in a number of cases by this Court and by various other High Courts. There seems to be consistancy in approach and Courts have taken the view that during the period of validity, a cheque can be presented any number of times and on each occasion when the cheque is dishonoured, the complainant will have a cause of action. This Court in Madan Mohan v. K. M. Menon 1993 Rajdhani Law Reporters, 119 had taken the same view where the Court has laid down that the cheque can be presented any number of times during the period of six months, during the period of its validity and each time it will have a seperate cause of action. ( 4 ) SIMILAR view has been taken in another judgement, by Madras High Court, i. e. , K. V. lyer Proprietor, Reapwel Consultancy Services v. Chitra and Co. Rep. by S. S. R. Raj Kumar 1990 (2)Madras Weekly Notes (Eng.) 47. ( 4 ) SIMILAR view has been taken in another judgement, by Madras High Court, i. e. , K. V. lyer Proprietor, Reapwel Consultancy Services v. Chitra and Co. Rep. by S. S. R. Raj Kumar 1990 (2)Madras Weekly Notes (Eng.) 47. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below : "the second presentation of the cheque had been made by the respondent company only as requested by the petitioner. It cannot be stated that the cheque dishonoured, when presented for the second time, will not give rise to a cause of action enabling the petitioner to prefer a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The complaint having been filed within the statutory period of one month from the date of cause of action, namely, 7. 3. 1990, after the issuance of a notice to the petitioner as prescribed under the Act, it goes without saying that complainant filed assuch is perfectly on order and maintainable. " ( 5 ) IN this case, the learned Metroplitan Magistrate has taken the view that the cheque can only be presented once. This view is contrary to the legislative intention and settled position of law. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has invited my attention to the judgment delivered by this Court in Maheshwari Protein Ltd. v. State 1990 DRJ page 29. The interpretation of law which has been declared in this case is also not different from what has been taken in other two judgments REFERRED TO to above. ( 7 ) THE impugned order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate does not reflect a correct reacting of Madan Mohan v. K. M. Menon, K. V. lyer v. Chitra and Co. and Other cases. The legislative intention and its interpretation by Courts is absolutely clear. Consequently, the order dated 6th September, 1993 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in this case is set aside to the extent that complaint filed by the complainant is time barred. ( 8 ) THE revision is allowed and parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 2nd September, 1994. The Registry is directed to send the record of this Court through a special messenger. Petition Allowed.