M.G. Gaikwad, J.
1. Heard learned Advocates for respective parties.
2. By preferring these applications original complainant seeks leave to prefer appeal against the judgment of acquittal recorded in S.T.C.C. Nos. 996/99, 997/99 and 1000/99. The applicant had filed above referred 3 complaints alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
In S.T.C. Case No. 996/99 the allegations made by the complainant are that cheque dated 30.9.98 for Rs. 35,090/- came to be dishonoured and payment of that cheque amount was not made, in spite of demand notice.
In S.T.C. Case No. 997/99, accused was alleged to have issued cheque dated 4.10.1998 for Rs. 34,100/-. It was dishonoured and intimation dated 5.10.1998 was given to the complainant. Demand of that amount was made but it was not satisfied, so alleging offence under Section 138 of the Act, second complaint came to be filed.
In S.T.C. Case No. 1000/99 complainant alleged offence on account of dishonour of cheque dated 1.10.1998 for Rs. 25,773/- and amount under the said cheque was demanded but not paid in spite of service of notice.
3. At the trial, complainant examined one witness and produced on record the cheque, intimation of dishonour of the cheque and different notices. Accused came with specific defence that on dishonour of 3 cheques on 5.10.1998 complainant issued a demand notice on 6.10.1998 and after that demand all 3 complaints were not filed within the period of limitation. In support of this defence accused No. 1 examined himself and also produced on record demand notice Exh. 85. The complainant also admitted issuance of demand notice Exh. 85 demanding the alleged amount of 3 dishonoured cheques. In view of these facts, the Trial Court held that there was a demand of amount of 3 dishonoured cheques and said demand was as per proviso to Clause (b) to Section 138 of the Act. All 3 complaints were held not filed within the stipulated period and complaint was held to be barred by limitation and accused came to be acquitted. Complainant by these applications claimed leave to prefer appeal against acquittal.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Halkude appearing on behalf of complainant-applicants made submission that demand dated 6.10.1998 by letter Exh. 85 cannot be said to be a demand because in the said letter cheque numbers are not mentioned nor there is specific demand of the amount mentioned. According to him, that letter cannot be said to be a demand notice, so cause of action will not arise on that date but cause of action arose after subsequent notices issued by complainant.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Golewar pointed out from the letter Exh. 85 that alleged amount of 3 dishonoured cheques is mentioned in that letter. There are also recitals that the accused were called upon to deposit the said amount. Not only this but complainant herself admitted these facts. Though accused was in the witness box and stated that except these 3 cheques no other cheque was dishonoured. Complainant could not bring on record any material to show that any other cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record as well as the submissions made on behalf of both the parties in paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10 recorded detailed reasons and came to the conclusion that letter dated 6.10.1998 is a demand from the complainant of the amount of 3 dishonoured cheques. In paragraph No. 10 it has been specifically mentioned that complainant in the cross-examination also admitted that after intimation of dishonour of cheques, in all 3 matters complainant company issued letter to the accused stating that the amount in those cheques should be paid till 5 p.m. on that day. So the admission of the complainant, the statement of accused and the letter Exh. 85 if read together, it is clear that there was a specific demand of amount of 3 cheques. No doubt it was combined demand notice of 3 cheques but this combined notice as admitted by complainant is in relation to these 3 dishonoured cheques, so there was no confusion at all in relation to the amount as well as the cheques. Non-mentioning of cheque numbers in the demand notice by itself cannot be a ground to hold that there was no demand. As such, the demand was made on 6.10.1998 which can be said to be a demand notice as contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act and admittedly from that date complaints have not been filed within limitation after arising of cause of action. Hence learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted accused in all 3 cases. So these are not the fit cases wherein leave to prefer appeal against acquittal is to be granted, Hence leave refused.