Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J. (Oral): - This appeal is against acquittal preferred by M/s Gupta Rice and General Mills, Bassi Pathana. The complaint preferred by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’) was simply thrown-out by the trial Court on the sole ground that two subject cheques issued by the respondent M/s Meerut Agro Mills Limited were dishonoured not on account of insufficient funds, but on account of ‘Stop Payment’ instruction received from the account holder, the respondents-herein.

2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that the respondents-accused M/s Meerut Agro Mills Limited purchased rice bags worth Rs.8,55,439/- on 12/15/and 23.12.1992. A sum of Rs.2,15,000/- alone was paid towards the said consignment by the respondents-accused in the month of April, 1993. The first accused through the second accused Director who was Incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the first accused issued two cheques on 20.6.1993 and another one on 30.6.1993, each for a sum of Rs.3 lacs in favour of the complainant-firm. Both the cheques were dishonored as per the information received from the State Bank of Patiala, Bassi Pathana Branch. Statutory notice was issued on 15.7.1993, but there was no positive response from the respondentsaccused. Hence the complaint.

3. On the side of the complainant PW1 Vivek Mohan Mittal, Advocate who issued the statutory notice dated 15.7.1993 to the respondents-accused was examined to speak about the issuance of the statutory notice. PW3 K.M.Vijay Rangam, Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was examined on the side of the complainant. He has spoken to the fact that both the cheques presented by the complainant through their bankers State Bank of Patiala, Bassi Pathana Branch were presented for payment, but the same could not be honoured as their customers, namely, the respondent-firm issued Stop Payment instruction. PW2 S.P.Jairath, Manager of the State Bank of Patiala, Bassi Pathana Branch spoke about the issuance of memo Ex.AA informing their client, namely, the complainant herein that the cheques presented for collection returned with an endorsement by the State Bank of Mysore, Karol Bagh, New Delhi that their customers rendered Stop Payment instruction. PW4 Baldev Krishan has spoken about the subsisting liability between the complainant and the accused which culminated in the issuance of subject two cheques and dishonor of the same on account of stop payment instruction received by their bankers from the accused-respondents. He has also spoken to the fact that in spite of the statutory notice issued to the respondents, there was no positive response.

4. The accused took up a plea that there was no supply of rice as agreed by the complainant, but the cheques issued as security were dishonored on account of insufficient funds.

5. DW1 Anil Kumar, Clerk attached to learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi has deposed that a suit was filed by the respondents claiming a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- as damages for the non-supply of the rice ordered by the respondents from the complainant as on 28.1.1994. DW2 M.Balasubraymaniam, Branch Manager of State Bank of Mysore, Karol Bagh, New Delhi has spoken about the Overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.50 lacs available in the accounts of the respondents-accused. DW3 Munish Tyagi, Advocate has deposed that a notice was issued to the complainant informing him of the stop payment instruction parted with by the accused to their bankers.

6. The trial Court having adverted to the above materials on record returned two findings. The first finding was that two cheques were in fact issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for the subsisting liability. The second finding was that those two cheques issued by the accused in favour of the complainant were dishonored by State Bank of Mysore, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on the ground that their customers, namely, the res