ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. 1st respondent filed C.C. No. 13 of 2001 against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampalle, Hyderabad. In that case petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6498 of 2002 seeking his discharge from that case on the ground that he, in reply to the statutory notice got issued by the 1st respondent, made a request to the 1st respondent to represent the cheque into the Bank since he arranged sufficient funds for honouring the cheque which was dishonoured earlier and that 1st respondent without so representing the cheques unnecessarily filed the complaint against him, solely with a view to harass and in convenience him. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition and that order of dismissal was confirmed by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by the order impugned in this petition.
2. The point for consideration is whether the payee of the dishonoured cheque is bound to represent the cheque for payment into the Bank, when the drawer, in reply to the statutory notice got issued by him demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, instead of sending the amount asks him to represent the same into the Bank on the ground that he had made arrangement for honour of the cheque on its representation.
3. In my considered opinion the answer to the above question should be an emphatic ‘No’.
4. As rightly observed by the learned Magistrate the fact that the drawer of the cheque might have made arrangement for deposit of sufficient funds into his account by itself would not absolve the drawer of the dishonoured cheque from his liabilities under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The main object and purpose for which notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to the drawer is to be given is to afford an opportunity to him to pay the amount covered by the bounced cheque within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act does not cast a duty on the payee to represent the cheque for payment when the drawer in reply to the statutory notice instead of paying the amount asks him to represent the cheque into his Bank. If the petitioner had sufficient money with him, there was no reason for his not sending the amount to the payee within the period specified in Section 138 Proviso (c) to the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the above circumstances I find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
Hence, petition is dismissed.