The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement that a cheque must be given in respect of an enforceable debt, as stipulated by the relevant sections of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The order of acquittal dated 04-11-2006, passed in C.C.No.261 of 2005 by the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur is being challenged in the present criminal appeal.

2. The appellant herein, as complainant, has filed the complaint in question, under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole accused.

3. The material averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is the Managing Trustee of Indian Educational Trust. The accused has been doing real estate business. In the course of his business, the accused is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs seventy five thousand only). For discharging the said amount the accused has given the cheque in question, and its number is 981673. The same has been presented in the concerned bank and the concerned bank has returned the same stating 'funds insufficient'. In spite of assurance given by the accused to the complainant, he failed to make sufficient arrangement of funds in his account. The complainant has issued a legal notice to the accused, and received by him on 03-10-2004. Evenafter receipt of said notice, he failed to discharge his liability. Under the said circumstances, he committed an offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881and therefore, the present complaint has been filed.

4. The Trial Court after evaluating the available evidence on record has dismissed the complaint and thereby, acquitted the accused. Against the order of acquittal, the present criminal appeal has been preferred at the instance of the complainant, as appellant.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant has repeatedly contended that the cheque, in question, has been issued to the Indian Educational Trust, wherein the complainant has been acting as Managing Trustee. Under the said circumstances, the present complaint has been filed. But the Trial Court without considering the evidence available on record, has erroneously dismissed the complaint and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside and the accused is liable to be punished in accordance with law.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused has also equally contended that in the instant case on the side of the appellant/complainant, no acceptable and trustworthy evidence is available for the purpose of proving that the cheque, in question, has been given either to the Trust mentioned in the complaint or to the present complainant and since there is no nexus in between the complainant and accused and since on the side of the appellant/complainant, it has not been proved to the effect that the cheque, in question, has been given in respect of an enforceable debt, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Trial Court does not require any interference.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant has accited the following decisions:

(i) 1998 (2) Allahabad (Cri) 792 = 1999 Cri LJ 1349 (Devendra Vs. Ram Gopal Rai and anr.) wherein the High Court of Allahabad has held as follows:

"No requirement of law that cheque to be issued to that person from whom liability incurred. "

(ii) In 2002 (3) ACR 2519 (SC) (I.C.D.S. Ltd., Vs. Beena Shabeer and anr.) wherein it is held that cheque issued by wife as guarantor towards debt liability of husband can be enforced under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(iii) In 2004 (2) SCC 235 (Goa Plast (P) Ltd., Vs. Chico Ursula D'Souza), it is held that relationship between parties concerned was not at all a factor germane to the proceedings under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(iv) In 2015 (2) MLJ (Crl) 304 (Soorya Weavers Vs. J.P. Anthony Raj) wherein this Court has held that evidence of complainant disclose that the complainant/ Spprua Weavers as well as Sun