IMPORTANT POINT
A cheque issued for repayment of loan or security makes no difference under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

K. Ramanna, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order of dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 2004 dated 21.2.2005 passed by the FTC No. VI, confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the 16th Additional CMM, Bangalore City in CC No. 34870/2001 dated 12.8.2004 and reversing the findings.

2. The case of the respondent/complainant is that he is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various types of animal feeds and the petitioner/accused who is in the business of sale of animal feeds periodically purchased the animal feeds on credit basis from the respondent/complainant. The petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.104893 dated 17.4.2001 for a sum of Rs. 1,80,395.21ps., drawn on Indian Bank, Bharanikkavu, towards the amount due for supply of feeds on credit basis and when the said cheque was presented by the complainant through their banker State Bank of India, Byatarayanapura, Mysore Road Branch, Bangalore, for realisation on 18.4.2001, it was dishonoured and returned un-encashed for the reason that the account relating to the said cheque was closed and the said factum was informed through endorsement dated 21.4.2001 and the said fact was communicated to the complainant through Debit Slip dated 4.5.2001 and thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 16.6.2001 calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount due towards dishonoured cheque and the said notice was served on the accused vide reply notice dated 2.6.2001 and in the said reply notice, she had taken baseless and frivolous grounds for non-payment of the amount due to the complainant and failed to make payment. Hence, a complaint was lodged.

3. The trial Court took cognizance of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued process to the accused. The accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the case, the Accounts Officer of the complainant’s company examined as PW1 and got marked Exs. P1 to 11 and after closure of the evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court after consideration of the evidence placed on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner/accused to pay Rs. 1,85,000 failing which she shall undergo imprisonment for 3 months and out of the amount deposited Rs. 1,80,000 to be paid to the respondent and Rs. 5,000 to be credited to the State Exchequer as fine amount. Assailing the said judgment and order of conviction the petitioner/accused challenged the same before the FTC-VI at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 762/2004, which came to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with this revision petition praying to allow this petition by setting aside the order of dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 762/2004 and also the order passed in C. C. 34870/2001.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there was no outstanding liability to the extent of the cheque amount as alleged by the respondents and the petitioner never received a copy of any distributor ledger register on 1.4.2000 and she did not issue the cheque on 17.4.2001, in fact, the respondent complainant withheld the distributor ledger register from producing before the Court. In fact, the respondent has taken six cheques from the revision petitioner on 20.2.2000 as security in respect of the credit transaction prevailing between the parties. It is further argued that when the revision petitioner closed her business she sent a stop payment letter to the Bank after giving intimation to the complainant. It is further argued that respondent/complainant failed to examine the officer of the bank. Therefore, provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not at all applicable to the case on hand. This revision petitioner has clearly stated in her evidence that she is not due to p