Judgment This is an application for leave to file appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Uran, District:Raigad, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There was an agreement dated 24th January, 2007, in terms of which respondent was to pay the applicant and other co-owners a sum of Rs.72,00,000/-towards the price sale of property. The amounts were to be paid in installments as indicated in the agreement i.e. before expiry of 12 months from the date of agreement. The dispute arose as to installments of Rs.20 lacs and Rs.12 lacs which were to be paid by cheques dated 30th September, 2007 and 30th January, 2008. Though it was respondent's contention that in fact blank cheques were given, respondent had told the applicant not to fill up those cheques and put them for encashment, till the respondent could arrange for money. The cheques, however, were presented for realization on 31st January 2008 which were returned dishonoured on 5th February, 2008. On 18th February, the appellant gave notice to the respondent calling upon respondent to pay a sum of Rs.42 lacs under the dishonoured cheques. Notice was received by the respondent on 22nd February, 2008 and on 4th March, 2008 i.e. before the stipulated period of 15 days, respondent replied the notice. The complainant had by a notice dated 6th March, 2008 terminated the agreement itself. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent is still ready to pay the remaining consideration should the applicant be ready to hand over the property for the price fixed as per agreement. 2. The learned Magistrate held among the other things that on the date the cause of action arose, agreement was already cancelled by the applicant by issuing notice dated 6th March, 2008 and therefore, respondent was not legally liable to pay amount of the dishonoured cheques. He held that the cause of action first arose on 8th March, 2008 on the premise that the notice was received by the respondent on 22nd February, 2008 which gave 15 days time to the respondent which expired on 7th March, 2008 and therefore, the cause of action to file complaint arose on 8th March, 2008. 3. He held that the cause of action first arose on 8th March, 2008 on the premise that the notice was received by the respondent on 22nd February, 2008 which gave 15 days time to the respondent which expired on 7th March, 2008 and therefore, the cause of action to file complaint arose on 8th March, 2008. 3. Learned counsel for respondent relied on a judgment of this Court, in Bhavtis Francis Fernandes vs. Nitin Govind Caichur and anr, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 174, to support her contention that since the amount was payable to all the owners and not to the applicant alone and since the applicant had not filed any Power of attorney on behalf of others, complaint itself was not tenable. The question is not whether the agreement was with the applicant alone or with the applicant alongwith his family members. The question is who is the payee of the cheque which was issued by the respondent, and since the applicant is the payee, there is no question of his obtaining any power of attorney from other owners. The facts in case of Bavtis Francis Fernandes (supra), are different. 4. The learned Magistrate erred in concluding that the cause of action even arose on 8th March, 2008 since the cause of action in criminal cases is a bundle of facts. The cause of action first arose when the cheque was dishonoured on 5th February, 2008 on which date agreement was not cancelled. Therefore, this would require reconsideration. Leave granted. Admit. Call for record and proceeding. 5. Since the learned counsel for respondent is appearing, action under Section 390 of Code of Criminal Procedure is dispensed with. 6. Application stands disposed of.