Court allows appeal, sets aside lower court decision. Accused not liable under Section 138.

The court allowed the appeal filed by the accused against the judgment and sentence passed in CC No. 329 of 1991. The lower court's decision was set aside as the court found that the complainant had agreed to receive payment in installments as per an agreement (Ex.D1), which altered the terms of the initial cheque payment (Ex.P1). Consequently, the accused could not be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Criminal Revision Case filed by the complainant on the adequacy of the sentence was dismissed, as no case was established against the accused based on the circumstances and agreements between the parties.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against judgment and sentence passed in CC No. 329 of 1991
- Criminal Revision Case filed by the complainant on the adequacy of the sentence passed

Analysis:
1. The Criminal Appeal was filed by the accused against the judgment and sentence passed in CC No. 329 of 1991. The complainant filed a Criminal Revision Case stating that the sentence passed was inadequate.

2. The complaint involved the issuance of a cheque by the accused in favor of the complainant, which was subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant demanded payment, leading to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The prosecution presented evidence, including witnesses and documents, to prove the case. The lower court found the accused guilty under Section 138 and sentenced the accused to imprisonment and a fine.

4. The defense argued that an agreement (Ex.D1) was made between the parties for payment in installments, which was acknowledged by the complainant. This agreement altered the terms of the initial cheque payment (Ex.P1) and should be considered in the case.

5. The court considered the evidence presented, including the terms of Ex.D1 and the actions of the parties following its execution. It was noted that the complainant had agreed to receive payment in installments, which contradicted the basis of the complaint under Section 138.

6. The court concluded that since the complainant had agreed to installment payments as per Ex.D1, the accused could not be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the initial dishonored cheque (Ex.P1). Therefore, the judgment and sentence of the lower court were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

7. As a result of the decision in the Criminal Appeal, the Criminal Revision Case filed by the complainant on the adequacy of the sentence was dismissed. The court found that no case was made out against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the circumstances and agreements between the parties.

---