Complainant in C.C.No.397/2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi is the appellant. The allegation in the complaint is as follows: First accused, a dealer in paper and paper products, used to purchase paper products from the appellant, a public limited company, on credit for a pretty long time and as per the arrangement, the bills of the accused would be credited by the bank in favour of the appellant and amount should be paid by the accused to the bank within 90 days and in default the amount would be debited to the account of the appellant with interest. As the accused failed to pay the bill amount, the appellant had to pay the amount with interest. Thus, the accused owed a sum of Rs.40,66,479. O.S.No.686/2000 and C.C.Nos.433/2001 and 435/2001 were filed by the appellant against the accused. But during the pendency of the cases, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the 2nd accused on behalf of the firm issued 4 post-dated cheques to the appellant and when one of the above cheques for Rs.50,00,000 dated 30-8-2001 was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. On complying the provisions regarding the notice etc., the complaint was filed. After considering the entire evidence, the trial court fond that accused 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 were found guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and they were convicted there under and the 1st respondent was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000 and 2nd respondent was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000 and in default to undergo six months. Accused Nos.3 and 4 were not found guilty and they were acquitted under section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded against accused 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2, they had approached the appellate court by filing Crl.A.No.143 of 2005. Against the acquittal of accused 3 and 4, the appellant filed Crl.R.P.No.4/2005 before the same court. After considering the evidence, the appeal was allowed and the findings entered by the trial court against respondents 1 and 2 were set aside and respondents 1 and 2 were acquitted. The revision filed by the appellant was dismissed. Against the judgment of the appellate court, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the 3rd respondent State. Though notice was served on respondents 1 and 2, there is no appearance on behalf of them.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the finding of the appellate court that the cheque was not supported by consideration is against the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also contended that the finding of the appellate court that the cheque was not issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability is not sustainable in law.

4. It was specifically alleged in the complaint that as respondents 1 and 2 who were dealers in paper and paper products failed to pay bill amount of Rs.40,66,479, O.S.No.686/2002 was filed before the Addl. Sub Court, Ernakulam and C.C.Nos.433/2001 and 435/2001 were filed before the Judl. First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam against them and in view of the settlement, the 2nd respondent on behalf of the firm issued Ext.P-3 cheque and when it was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured. Evidence adduced by the appellant would show that respondents 1 and 2 had failed to pay the bill amount as per the agreement and in view of the settlement, four cheques were issued by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant. If that be so, as per the provisions of section 138 of the Act, where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account