The language of S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is clear and includes the discharge of any debt or other liability, and the intent of the legislature cannot be overlooked.

1. Leave granted.

2. A short but an interesting question falls for consideration in this appeal to the effect as to the maintainability of a proceeding under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vis-a-vis a guarantor. The High Court negated it and hence the matter is before this Court under Art.136 of the Constitution. In order, however, to appreciate the contentions raised in the matter, it would be worthwhile at this juncture to notice S.138 for its true terms, scope and effect as also to assess the situation ourselves. S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 reads as follows:

"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account.- 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 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless -

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability".

3. It is on the basis of the provision as above, the High Court came to a conclusion when a cheque was issued as security, no complaint will lie under S.138 of the Act since the cheque issued cannot be said to be for the purpose of discharging any debt or liability: In justification of the said conclusion the High Court records the following reasons:

"Reading of the above section would make it clear that issuance of a cheque must be for payment of amount of money from out of the account. In the case of a guarantor or surety, even if a cheque is issued, that cannot be said to be for immediate payment of money: S.138 of the Act further says that issuance of cheque to another person is towards discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability".

4. The High Court has also placed reliance on a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala, 1999 (3) KLT 849. Incidentally, a learned single judge of the High Court in the decision last noted (supra) also placed reliance on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Taher N. Khambati v. Vinayak Enterprises, 1995 (1) KLT SN 5, wherein it has been held as follows:

"In the instant case, the appellant advanced some money to the respondents and obtained a pronote. It was stipulated that the respondent should pay interest every month. At the same time appellant-creditor took a blank signed cheque from the respondents with the understanding that the complainant could fill the other columns in the cheque and present it if the respondents committed default in payment of interest. So, the appellant has obtained this blank signed cheque with a view to make use