IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dishonour of cheque – Where complainant’s case is based on a specific claim that money was given for securing a TNSTC job and cheque was issued to repay this amount, there is no legally enforceable debt or liability.
(2) Agreement to secure a job in exchange for money is opposed to public policy, rendering it void ab initio.

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in C.C.No.32 of 2017 dated 04.01.2018 on the file of the Fast Track Magistrate Court, Srivilliputtur, acquitting the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (hereinafter referred as ‘NI’) Act.

2. The appellant / complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the first respondent / accused for the alleged offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.

4. The case of the complainant is that the accused was earlier working in mechanical section of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as ‘TNSTC’) depot at Virudhunagar and the complainant had acquaintance with one Madamuthu of Srivilliputtur, who retired after serving in the computer section of TNSTC depot, where the accused was working. The accused informed the complainant that he was holding important post in the Transport Corporation Labour Union and he is having good influence through Labour Union and that he would arrange conductor job to the complainant and demanded Rs.3 lakhs for the same. The complainant believing the words of the accused had arranged and paid Rs.3 lakhs on 10.02.2016 in the presence of the said Madamuthu at TNSTC depot Virudhunagar but the accused has failed to arrange the job, as agreed by him. When the complainant along with the said Madamuthu approached the accused several times and demanded to return the amount received by him, the accused agreeing to return the same had issued a cheque dated 31.12.2016 drawn on State Bank of India, Aruppukkottai Branch for discharging the amount due by him. When the complainant presented the cheque on 02.01.2017, he was informed by the bank authorities that the cheque is an old and invalid one. When the same was informed to the accused, he issued another cheque dated 28.02.2017 for Rs.3 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, Virudhunagar Branch. When the said cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned dishonored for want of sufficient amount in the bank account of the accused. The complainant has then sent a legal notice dated 14.03.2017 3/14 directing the accused to pay the amount covered by the cheque but the accused having received the legal notice on 20.03.2017, neither sent any reply nor complied with the notice demand. Hence, the complainant was constrained to lodge the above complaint for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act.

5. The learned Magistrate, after compliance with the mandatory requirements, had taken the case on file in C.C.No.32 of 2017 and ordered for issuance of summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him and on being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence, trial was ordered.

6. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Madamuthu as P.W.2 and exhibited 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. After the closure of complainant’s side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating aspects as against him in the evidence adduced by the complainant and the accused denied the same as false and stated that he is having defence evidence but subsequently, he has not let any evidence.

7. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment dated 04.01.2018 by holding that the cheque in dispute was not issued for discharging the legally enforceable debt or liability and as such, Section 138 of the NI Act will not get attracted, acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that the debt or liabi