B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.- The accused in C.C. No. 455 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode, Periyar District, has come forward with the instant Crl. O.P. No. 18066 of 1998, to quash the same. The respondent berein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The case of the complainant briefly stated is as under : The complainant is a businessman carrying on business in textile and automobiles. The accused is also a business-man dealing in paper products and is running a textile mill at Dindigul. For his business purpose, the accused borrowed Rs. 6,00,000/- from the complainant on 7.3.1998. Towards repayment of the debt, he had issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- on 7.3.1998. The cheque was dated 7.4.1998. Again on 15.3.1998, the accused borrowed Rs. 6,00,000/- and issued a post-dated cheque dated 15.4.1998 for the said amount. Both the cheques were presented in the Bank on 20.4.1998, but they were returned on the same date with endorsement `insufficient funds'. Statutory notice was issued to the accused on 24.4.1998, which he had received on 19.4.1998. He had given a reply on 16.5.1998, but since no payment was made, the complainant instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused.

3. As against this proceedings, the accused has preferred the instant petition. According to the petitioner, one of the essential ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that the cheque must have been drawn "for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability". But, this has not been pleaded in petition.

4. The next point contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint does not bear any date of presentation and, therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation.

5. Heard both the sides. It is evident that the petitioner had issued post-dated cheques on 7.3.1998 and 15.3.1998. Post-dated cheque is only a bill of exchange, because no payment in praesenti is required. It becomes a cheque when the date of payment reaches. In the instant case, the date of payment reached on 7.4.1998 and 15.4.1998. Therefore, as on the date of the presentation, both the documents have become cheques.

6. The point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is nothing to indicate in the complaint that the cheques were issued for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. What is debt? It is something owned to another, liability, on obligation, a chose in action, which is capable of being assigned by creditor to some other person. A debt is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in future by reasons of present obligations. It, therefore, follows that there must be debitum in praesenti; Solventum may or may not be in praiesenti. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshoram v. C.W.T., AIR 1966 SC 1360, have observed that if there is an obligation to pay a sum of money at a future that, it is debt owning, but when the obligation is to pay a sum of money in prasenti, it is a debt due. A sum due would, therefore, mean a sum for which there is an existing obligation to pay in praesenti or in other words it is presently payable.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the observations of Pratap Singh, J. made in Kumar,, K. v. M/s. Bapsons Foot Wear, Etc., 1993 L.W. (Crl.) 600, wherein the noble Judge has held that mere allegation that in the course of their business the accused issued a cheque, etc. is not sufficient to indicate the existence of any debt or other liability. That was a case where in the coutse of business the accused issued cheque and recital in the complaint was "the complainant states that in their course of business, the accused had issued a cheque S.B. No. 795044 dated 20.12.1989 for Rs. 2,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Polur, North Arcot District". The noble