The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must accurately reflect the entity mentioned in the cheque and prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of acquittal made in C.C.No.8205 of 2000 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The appellant as a complainant preferred a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stating that it is carrying on business of supplying fabrics and it supplied fabric to the value of Rs.4,29,658/- as per the instruction of the third accused / third respondent under Ex.P2-Invoice. The third respondent transferred the goods to the first accused / first respondent without the knowledge of the complainant. The third accused asked the complainant to change the invoice in the name of the first accused. A sum of Rs.91,800/- alone was paid by the second accused / second respondent. The complainant received a fax on 13.07.2000 from the first accused stating that they were rejecting the goods and later, they informed the complainant that there had been a mistake and that they would make payment. In order to pay the cost of fabric, the first accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.732031 and 732032 dated 11.07.2000 and 31.07.2000 drawn at State Bank of India, Guindy Branch, Chennai, for a sum of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.2,77,858/-. The complainant presented the cheques for encashment before Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai and the same was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds” on 13.07.2000 and 08.08.2000. Thereafter, the first accused issued two fresh cheques bearing Nos.775631, 775632 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- each. The cheque bearing No.775631 was honoured while the cheque bearing No.775632 was dishonoured. At the request of the first accused, the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.775632 for Rs.70,000/- and another cheque bearing No.732032 for Rs.2,77,858/- for encashment, but, the cheque bearing No.775632 was honoured while the cheque bearing No.732032 was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “Exceeds arrangement” on 03.10.2000 under Ex.P5-Return Memo. The Debt advice was marked as Ex.P6. Therefore, the complainant issued Ex.P7-statutory notice to the first accused on 17.10.2000 and the same was received by them on 16.11.2000 and the acknowledgment card was marked as Ex.P8. The accused issued the cheque, knowing fully well that there was no sufficient funds in its accounts to honour the cheque, thereby, committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after following the procedure, examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and placed the incriminating evidence against the accused. But, the accused pleaded not guilty. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate held that the disputed cheque was dishonoured due to stop payment and not for Exceeds arrangement and the complainant failed to prove that the disputed cheque was issued for discharging legally enforceable debt. Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant supplied fabrics to the value of Rs.4,29,658/- as per the instruction of the third accused. As per Ex.P3-letter given by the 3rd respondent, viz, Nizam International Ltd., the first accused had to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,37,858/-. Even though notice had been received by the accused, there was no reply. As per Ex.P5-return memo with an endorsement “Exceeds arrangements” and Ex.P6-the debt advice, the ingredients of offence under Section 138 has been made out. He further submitted that the disputed cheque is Ex.P4 and the same was issued by the accused for discharging the legally enforceable liability. But the said factum has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence, he prayed for setting aside of the Judgment of acquittal and prayed for conviction.

5. Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondents s