CAUSE OF ACTION: Cause of action arises when notice is served on the drawer and drawer fails to make payment of the amount of cheque within 15 days. Limitation to file complaint is one month from the date of cause of action. However, by Amendment Act of 2002 court is empowered to take cognizance of the offence even if complaint is filed beyond one month by condoning the delay if sufficient cause is shown. It has been held in various other cases that offence is not made out 1. When cheque returned as defective one (Babulal vs. Khilji 1998 (3) Mh L.J. 762 ) 2. When no notice is given to company and cheque is drawn by company ( P. Raja Rathinalm vs. State of Maharashtra 1999 (1) Mh.L.J. 815) 3. Cheque is given as a gift. 4. Complainant was not a payee. 5. Signature of drawer on the cheque is incomplete. ( Vinod vs. Jahir 2003 (1) Mh L.J. 456.) PUNISHMENT: After the amendment of 2002 the imprisonment that may be imposed may extend to two years, while fine may extend to twice the amount of cheque. However, the trial is conducted in summary way, then Magistrate can pass sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one year and amount of fine exceeding Rs.5,000/. There is no limitation for awarding compensation. The sentence should be such that it gives proper effect to the object of the legislation. No drawer can be allowed to take advantage of cheque issued by him lightly. Apex court has cautioned against imposing flee bite sentences. In case of Sujanti Suresh Kumar vs. Jagdeeshan 2002 Cr.L.J. 1003 Prior to the amendment of 2002 a sentence of fine in excess of Rs.5,000/by Judicial Magistrate, First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate was held to be illegal. However, after the amendment the Magistrate are empowered to impose fine exceeding Rs.5,000/. In case of Dilip vs. Kotak Mahindra Company Ltd. 2008 (1) Mh L.J. 22 it was enunciated that the amount of compensation sought to be imposed must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Before issuing a direction to pay compensation the capacity of accused to pay the same must be judged. An inquiry in this behalf even in summary way may be necessary. Sub section 3 of Sec. 357 does not impose any limitation but the powers thereunder should be exercised only in appropriate cases. Ordinarily it should be lesser than the amount which can be granted by Civil Court upon appreciation of evidence. A criminal case is not a substitution for civil suit.