1. Leave granted.

2. A fax message sent by the respondent for his own safeguard has now boomeranged. Neither can he 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 die offence under S.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 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 owned a sum of 72075 US 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 those cheques atta