TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant for a total consideration of ₹ 22,760/-. The said T.V. was delivered to the non-applicant on same date and he made over the payment of ₹ 5,000/- in cash. The non-applicant had issued the post-dated cheque for the amount of ₹ 17,745/- on 8th January, 1998 and he was supposed to pay the balance amount in installment or in accordance with the post-dated cheque. When the cheque was presented for encashment on due date ,it was dishonoured. The fact of dishonour was communicated to the applicant by the Bank on 10th January, 1998. The non-applicant was served with notice dated 19th January, 1998 and he was called upon to make the balance payment. He did not give any reply of the notice nor he had paid the amount due. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l notice sent by the complainant would not be enough. In support of this submission, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan and Anr., IV 2001CriLJ4745 . 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant further contended that the object for enacting Section 138 will have to be taken into consideration and interpretation of the said section would be done in the light of the object thereof. In support, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd. and Ors., 2001CriLJ972 , wherein it has been held that, The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was enacted and Section 138 thereof incorporated with a specified object of making a speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e took delivery of the T. V. on the same day on payment of the sum of ₹ 5,000/- in cash. It is also not disputed that thereafter on 8th January, 1998, a post-dated cheque for ₹ 17,745/- was issued. This postdated cheque was presented in the Bank and it was communicated to the applicant on 10th January, 1998 by the Bank that the said cheque was dishonoured. It is also not disputed that 15 days legal notice as is required under Section 138 of the Act was served and the amount of ₹ 17,745/- was demanded which remained unpaid. 7. The learned trial Judge on considering the evidence observed that the cheque was issued by the non-applicant by way of security and not in the discharge of any liability. The liability and security ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted. However, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the learned Trial Court was of the view that the cheque was issued as a security for the balance amount and, therefore, he recorded the finding of acquittal. While dealing with the order of acquittal, when two views are possible, then it would not be proper on the part of this Court to exercise revisional powers under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for reversing the finding of acquittal. 9. In the backdrop of aforesaid circumstances, it is obvious that the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd. and Ors. (supra) and K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan and Anr. (supra) have no bearing on the facts and circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
