The intention to cheat can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

1. :- Heared and perused the case diary submitted for my perusal. It is alleged against the accused-petitioner that he purchased certain goods from complainant M/s Virendra Textiles, Mahavir Market, Tripolia Bazar, Jodhpur vide Bill No. 261 for a sum of Rs. 8,688.15p. It is further alleged that the accused-petitioner himself is a shop-keepeer, who runs his business in the name and style of M/s Jyoti Textiles, Tripolia Road, Jodhpur. At the time of purchasing these goods, the accused-petitioner told the complainant that he will pay this amount in the evening. In the evening when money was demanded, it was told that he was to recieved money on that day but it has not been received and so, he will send it on the next day. It so happened that no payment was made for about 4 to 5 months and on 5-9-87, a cheque was given to the complainant drawn on the Laxmi Commercial Bank by the brother of the accused. This cheque was given to the accused fully knowing the fact that the Bank Account has been closed. When this fact was brought to the notice of the accused, he again gave one cheque on 10-9-1987 drawn on the Punjab and Sindh Bank without having money to honour the cheque in his account. Thereafter, the accused paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- on 3-11-1987, Rs. 500/- were paid on 3-12-1987 and on 22-1-1988 he further paid a sum of Rs. 500/-. However, a notice was issued by the complainant to the accused and in reply to that notice, the accused took the plea that the goods supplied to him were bad and, therefore, the payment has not been made.

2. Mr. K.L. Jasmatiya the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has contended that in such cases of commercial transactions in order to pressurise the accused to make the payment, the civil dispute is given the colour of a Criminal dispute and the Court should take note of this fact. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Vijay Khanna v. Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd. (1984 Cr. L.J. 1967) , wherein it has been observed that the courts must be cautious in dealing with the allegations before the criminal court which also raise the dispute between the parties of a civil nature for which the aggrieved party must ordinarily invoke the aid of a civil process and to reasonably preclude the possibility that a mere convenient forum of a criminal court may have been mala-fide selected by an aggrieved parson in preference to prolix and costly civil process with a view to have an expeditious settlement of a bonafide dispute or to twist the tail of the accused for a settlement favourable to the party.

3. It was further submitted by Mr. Jasmatiya that issue of a cheque would not imply any presumption that the drawer already had money in the Bank to cover the amount shown on the cheque, for he may have either authority to overdraw or have an honest intention of paying the necessary money before presentation of the cheque for encashment. In this connection, reliance was placed on G.K Mohanty v. Pratap Kishore 1987 Cr.LJ 1446 . In Keshavji v. Emperor AIR 1930 Bombay-179 , it has been held that the giving of a cheque on a bank as payment for goods, or in payment of a debt does not amount to presumption that the person giving the cheque has money to the amount in the Bank at the time but does amount to a presumption (i) that he has authority to draw on the bank for that amount; and (2) that the cheque is a good and valid order for the payment of its amount and that the cheque will be paid i.e. that the existing state of facts is such that in the ordinary course the cheque will be met. It was further observed as

"What the prosecution has to do in a case of cheating by means of cheque is to establish facts which point prima facie to the conclusion that the failure to meet the cheque was not accidental but was a consequence expected and therefore, intended by the accused."

4. It was argued by Mr. Jasmatiya that simply because a cheque has been given and it