ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE APPELLANT FILED A COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 ON THE GROUND THAT THE TWO CHEQUES, ONE, IN THE SUM OF RS 2,50,000 AND THE OTHER IN THE SUM OF RS 5,00,000 WERE RETURNED BY THE BANK WITHOUT PAYMENT WITH THE ENDORSEMENT THAT THE PAYMENT HAD BEEN STOPPED BY THE DRAWER/ACCUSED. THE COMPLAINANT FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAD ISSUED A LEGAL NOTICE DATED 2-5-2001 TO THE ACCUSED. THE INFORMATION ABOUT DISHONOUR HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE BANK ON 24-4-2001. FURTHER AVERMENT MADE IN THE COMPLAINT IS THAT A REPLY NOTICE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE D LAWYER OF THE ACCUSED WITH FALSE ALLEGATIONS.

3. THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE HIGH COURT IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE COMPLAINANT TO SAY IN CLEAR TERMS THAT THE ACCUSED HAD NOT PAID THE AMOUNT NOR HAD HE GIVEN ANY OTHER EXPLANATION WITHHOLDING THE PAYMENT ON THIS ASPECT AND THERE WAS NO WHISPER IN THE E COMPLAINT AND THUS SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED.

4. WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. IT IS CONTRARY TO THE AVERMENTS MADE