Court affirms acquittal in check bounce case, emphasizing strict liability.

The High Court upheld the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order of acquittal in an appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant's argument that the cheque was issued to discharge liability was rejected, as it was deemed to be issued as security. Emphasizing strict liability for checks, the court found that the complainant failed to prove the elements of the offense, particularly notice receipt. Citing relevant case law, the court concluded that the cheque was not intended to discharge the liability in full, leading to the dismissal of the revision application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a private Criminal Case. The accused had purchased a TV and issued a post-dated cheque, which was dishonored. The complainant alleged an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The appellant contended that the trial judge erred in holding that the cheque was not issued to discharge the liability but as security. The appellant relied on the presumption under Section 118 of the Act and cited the case of K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan to support the argument.

3. The appellant further argued that the interpretation of Section 138 should consider the object of the Act, emphasizing strict liability for checks. Reference was made to the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd. to support this argument.

4. Section 138 of the Act creates a civil transaction as an offense. The offense is triggered by the receipt, not the giving, of the notice by the accused. The complainant must prove the elements of the offense, including notice receipt.

5. The court noted that the cheque was issued as security, not to discharge the liability. The trial judge's observation that the cheque was not for liability discharge was deemed correct, especially as the cash installments were not mentioned in the legal notice.

6. The court upheld the trial judge's finding of acquittal, stating that when two views are possible, the one in favor of the accused should be accepted. The decisions cited by the appellant were deemed irrelevant to the case's circumstances.

7. Considering the facts and the scope of Sections 138 and 118, the court concluded that the cheque was not issued to discharge the liability in full. The court found no merit in the revision application and dismissed it accordingly.

---