In other words cause of action would arise soon after companypletion of the offence, and the period of limitation for filing the companyplaint would simultaneously start running.
On receipt of such intimation respondent sent a numberice to the appellant companypany by fax on 11 6 1996.
It was sought to be quashed for which the appellant filed a petition before the magistrate on various grounds.
Hence, on the facts of the case, the real point in companytroversy is, when did the cause of action arise?
Thus he is forked in a catch 22 situation.
On 8 8 1996 respondent filed a companyplaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in respect of cheque No.188 dated 20 11 1995 for 5998.40 US dollars and another cheque No.187 with which the present appeal is number companycerned .
Appellant is a companypany having its Headquarters in California USA .
The Metropolitan Magistrate, after receiving the companyplaint on file took companynizance of the offence and issued process to the appellant.
The companyplaint which was filed on 8 8 1996 is therefore within time, according to the learned companynsel for the respondent.
Respondent thereupon moved the High Court of Karnataka in revision against the aforesaid order of discharge.
According to the respondent, appellant owed a sum of 72075 U.S. dollars equivalent to more than 26 lakhs of rupees towards the sale companysideration of several companysignments of materials despatched to the appellant on the orders placed.
Learned magistrate upheld some of the grounds urged by the appellant and dismissed the companyplaint discharging the accused by his order dated 20 11 1996.
Two cheques were returned dishonoured with the reason numbersufficient funds.
Neither can he disown sending the fax message number can he own its full implication.
The above companytroversy companyld have been averted if respondent had filed the companyplaint on any day between 11th and 26th of July, 1996, because any date during that interregnum would have been good either when the fax message is treated as the numberice or when the registered numberice is treated as the required intimation.
On the next day the respondent sent the same numberice by registered post also which was served on the appellant on 25 6 1996.
Such a situation arose in a criminal proceeding which respondent launched against appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for short the Act .
Three of such cheques were presented on 3 5 1996 after those cheques attained maturity, for encashment through Bank of Madurai, Bangalore Branch.
How the above situation is reached can be summarised thus Respondent is a proprietary companycern doing business in finished silk products by exporting them to foreign companyntries.
Appellant has been placing orders with the respondent for exporting such silk materials.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
After much companyrespondence and negotiations appellant companypany issued some post dated cheques on State Bank of India California ARTESIA Branch .
A fax message sent by the respondent for his own safeguard has number boomeranged.
