Invalid cheque under Negotiable Instruments Act due to ambiguity in amount stated in words. Section 138 offence not committed. Trial court order set aside.

The court found that the instrument in question did not meet the criteria of a valid cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act due to ambiguity in the amount stated in words. As a result, the court concluded that no offence under Section 138 of the Act was committed. The trial court's order dismissing the application for discharge was set aside, and the revisionists were discharged.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the cheque under Sections 5 and 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
2. Applicability of Section 18 of the NI Act.
3. Whether the dishonoured instrument amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. Interpretation and application of the judgment in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat.
5. Legality of the trial court's order dismissing the application for discharge.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Cheque under Sections 5 and 6 of the NI Act:
The court examined whether the instrument in question met the criteria of a valid cheque as defined under Sections 5 and 6 of the NI Act. Section 6 defines a cheque as a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and payable on demand. Section 5 defines a bill of exchange as an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order, signed by the maker, directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money only to a certain person or the bearer. The court found that the instrument satisfied all conditions except the certainty of the amount to be paid, as the amount written in words ("Forty Four Lacs Eighteen Lacs Eight Hundred and Ninety Six only") was ambiguous and unquantifiable.

2. Applicability of Section 18 of the NI Act:
Section 18 of the NI Act states that if the amount undertaken to be paid is stated differently in figures and words, the amount stated in words shall be considered. The court noted that Section 18 is mandatory and gives no choice to the courts to prefer the sum mentioned in figures over the amount mentioned in words. However, in this case, the amount in words was absurd and unquantifiable, rendering the instrument invalid as a cheque.

3. Whether the Dishonoured Instrument Amounts to an Offence under Section 138 of the NI Act:
Section 138 of the NI Act pertains to the dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds or exceeding arrangements with the bank. The court emphasized that the offence under Section 138 can only be committed if the instrument presented and dishonoured was a valid cheque as defined under Section 6 of the NI Act. Since the instrument in question was not a valid cheque due to the ambiguity in the amount, it could not be considered an offence under Section 138.

4. Interpretation and Application of the Judgment in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat:
The respondent argued that the case was covered by the judgment in Laxmi Dyechem, which dealt with the dishonour of cheques for various reasons such as insufficiency of funds, exceeding arrangements, and others. However, the court clarified that the judgment in Laxmi Dyechem did not address the issue of dishonour of an invalid instrument. The court concluded that the judgment in Laxmi Dyechem could not be applied to this case as the instrument was invalid on its face due to the uncertainty of the amount.

5. Legality of the Trial Court's Order Dismissing the Application for Discharge:
The court found that the trial court had erred in dismissing the application for discharge and ordering the framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The trial court failed to recognize that the instrument was not a valid cheque under Section 6 of the NI Act. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's order and discharged the revisionists.

In conclusion, the court held that the instrument in question was not a valid cheque due to the ambiguity in the amount stated in words, and therefore, no offence under Section 138 of the NI Act was committed. The trial court's order was set aside, and the revisionists were discharged.

---