C M PRASANNA Vs. M K SASEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant launched prosecution against the first respondent alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act"). This was on the basis of exhibit P1 cheque for an amount of Rs. 15,000, which is said to have been issued in repayment of the amount due from the first respondent to the appellant.

(2.) Before the court below, the issuance of the cheque was not disputed. But, according to the first respondent, there were other amounts due from the appellant, and on account of that dispute, the first respondent issued a stop memo to the bank not to make payment when the cheque was presented. At the same time, it was revealed that when the cheque was dishonoured on that count, there was sufficient amount in the credit of the first respondent to honour the cheque. Therefore, the first respondent took up a plea that the dishonour would not attract Section 138 of the Act, as the bouncing was not on the ground of insufficiency of funds, but due to other reasons. The court below accepted this contention and acquitted the accused on that sole reason.

(3.) It is agreed before me by counsel on either side that the only point involved in this appeal is whether the return of the cheque on the ground of stoppage of payment by the drawer would attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, both counsel addressed arguments only on that point.