Thomas , J.—Leave granted.

2. A fax message sent by the respondent for his own safeguard has now boomeranged. Neither can be disown sending the fax message nor can he own its full impli­cation. Thus he is forked in a catch-22-situation. Such a situation arose in a criminal proceeding which respondent launched against appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’).

3. How the above situation is reached can be summarised thus:

Respondent is a proprietary concern doing business is finished silk products by exporting them to foreign countries. Appellant is a company having its Headquarters in California (USA). Appellant has been placing orders with the respondent for exporting such silk mate­rials. According to the respondent, appellant owed a sum of 72075 U.S. dollars (equivalent to more than 26 lakhs of rupees) towards the sale consideration of several consignments of materials despatched to the appellant on the orders placed. After much correspondence and negotia­tions appellant company issued some post dated cheques on State Bank of India (California—ARTESIA Branch). Three of such cheques were presented on 3.5.1996 after tho