UMASWAMY Vs. K N RAMANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused is manufacturer of condiments and sweet meats. The complainant was taking supplies from the accused and had given caution deposit. The contract was terminated. The accused issued cheque Ex. P. 1 for Rs. 2,37,411. 78 towards repayment of caution deposit. On presentation cheque is dishonoured. The intimation of dishonour is received on 23-3-1996 as per Ex. P. 2. The complaint issued statutory notice and thereafter filed a private complaint.

(2.) PER contra, the accused contends that the accounts between the complainant-accused is not settled, cheque was issued tentatively with a clear mutual understanding that the cheque should be presented only after settlement of accounts. The cheque is issued only as a security and not towards discharge of the debt or other legal liability. It is further contended that the cheque is a blank cheque and in breach of the terms, the complainant has made premature presentation of the cheque. Therefore, argued that the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the N. I. Act.

(3.) EX. D. 2 is relied on by the accused to contend that the accounts are yet to be settled and the cheque was issued conditionally as stated above. The husband of complainant has made endorsement and received the cheque agreeing to the terms mentioned in Ex. D. 2. The contents of Ex. D. 2 states that the accounts to be settled on or before 6-3-99. The Ex. D. 7 is the endorsement showing settlement of amounts and it permits the complainant to present the cheque for encashment. Ex. D. 7, dated 18-3-99 bears the seal and signature of the manager of the accused. The cheque is presented on 20-3-99. Even according to the terms in Ex. D. 2 the cheque is presented after 6-3-99 and in accordance with terms of Ex. D. 2. The Ex. D. 7 discloses the liability is assessed after taking accounts and it is exactly equivalent to the amount in the cheque. It is admitted that a signed cheque has been validly delivered to the complainant. In the evidence also it is not established that the liability shown in the cheque is incorrect and falsely inflated.