Ramesh, J

This appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the 16th Addl. CMM., Bangalore, dated 1.10.07.

2. Heard the Counsel for the appellant.

3. The case of the appellant is that the respondent being the Software Engineer has issued a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs in favour of the appellant pursuant to the agreement entered into between him and the appellant to serve the appellant/company for a period of two years and that after his appointment he had also been imparted training at the cost of the Management; subsequently, after having worked for three months, respondent left the service of the company and thereby caused loss to the appellant. As such, complaint came to be filed by the appellant stating that by virtue of the agreement when the cheque had been issued it becomes enforceable debt. As against it, the trial Court, after enquiry, dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is a contract between the parties and there is a breach of contract and although the cheque was issued for Rs.2 lakhs by way of damages, it is purely a civil transaction and as such, the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and accordingly, has acquitted him.

4. Along with this appeal an application for special leave is also filed. On perusal of the order of the trial Court it is seen that the respondent accused had not issued the cheque either to clear of any debt or in connection with any other transaction, since subsequent to his appointment after the training, the respondent had been transferred to Mumbai, expressing his difficulties, he shown to have refused to continue the services at Mumbai.

5. According to the appellant, the respondent herein has joined the services of the appellant Q-Soft System & Solutions on 15.2.05 as per EX.P11 and in the event if he leaves the job before completion of two years of service he has to give damages of Rs. 2 lakhs to the company and in this connection an agreement is also entered into wherein the respondent had issued a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs and that without any reasons, the respondent has violated the terms and conditions and despite taking action he did not pay the amount, as such, the complaint was filed under Section 138 of NI Act.

6. The defense of the accused/respondent is that he was selected on temporary basis, except admitting the signature in the Cheque he denied all other contents in the cheque. According to him, Within two months itself the complainant had transferred him to Mumbai to work only for Rs. 5,000/-. Since the climate at Mumbai was not suitable to him and also that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- was not sufficient to meet out his livelihood and expenditure, after working for few days at Mumbai he returned back to Bangalore and thereafter he Was harassed by the complainant. It is his specific contention that violating the human rights he has been exploited and he had been removed from the service; the cheque was obtained under coercion and that he has not voluntarily given the cheque; the date and other contents in the cheque are being forged by the complainant except the signature. Accordingly, it is contended that he is not liable to pay the cheque amount. Further according to him the cheque so collected by him is not towards any liability by way of debt and it was given only as a matter of security; even the complainant had obtained the award in conciliation, as such, the complaint is not maintainable since simultaneously two proceedings cannot be initiated against the same person.

7. As per Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, the liability would arise on the part of the drawer when the cheque is issued for the discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the Bank unpaid. The object of Section 138 is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of Banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. Despite Civil remedy, Section 138 intended to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instrument