SUPPLY HOUSE Vs. ULLAS PROPRITOR BRIGHT AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act is assailed in this appeal by the complainant. According to him, he was a dealer in house hold articles. Accused also did have a shop of the similar articles somewhere else.The accused used to purchase articles on credit from the shop of the complainant. On this count amount was due from the accused. He issued Ext.P1 cheque. It was a post dated one bearing date 24.3.1998, for an amount of Rs. 58,520/- drawn on State Bank of India Thodupuzha. It was presented to the bank in August, 1998. It bounced as is revealed by Ext.P2. There upon complainant made a demand for payment of the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque by issuing a notice, Ext.P4. This was responded to in Ext.P7. As the complainant did not get payment, prosecution was launched. The case of the accused was that Ext.P1 cheque was issued as price of 28 number of mixies, which he had ordered from the complainant on 9.2.98. But the complainant failed to supply the item. Therefore he issued Ext.D4 stop memo to the Bank, on 10.3.1998. Copy of the order that he had placed was produced as Ext.D1. That was on 9.2.98. As the complainant did not honour the order placed in Ext.D1 for which Ext.P1 cheque was issued, it was not towards discharge of any liability that the accused did have at that time towards the complainant. So no case to attract Section 138 had been made out; the accused defended the case.

(2.) Appreciating the evidence on record the court below found that Ext.P1 cheque was not one issued in discharge of the liability that the accused had incurred towards the complainant.

(3.) It is submitted by the appellant that going by Ext.D3 and Ext.P8, the accused had admitted liability towards the complainant. In Ext.D3 dated 16.3.1998 the accused had even though intimated the complainant not to present the cheque in question in bank, he had agreed to settle the account later. This is also revealed from Ext.P8 communication issued by the complainant on 12.8.1998 as well. Thus when there was liability incurred by the accused towards the transaction subsisting between the parties the appellant was justified in presenting Ext.P1 cheque towards the subsisting liability, even though it was issued as price of the 28 numbers of mixies ordered as per Ext.D1. As on the date of the presentation of the cheque for encashment in the bank, as revealed by Exts.D3 and P8 there was subsisting liability from the part of the accused towards the complainant. Therefore Ext.P1 cheque cannot be stated to be one issued otherwise than towards discharge of the liability.