Cheque dishonour prosecution fails when notice and complaint are directed against the wrong person, not the actual drawer.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, liability lies against the drawer of the cheque, and proceedings cannot be sustained against a person who is neither the account holder nor the actual drawer. The cheque, statutory notice, and complaint were all directed to the person arrayed as accused, although the evidence showed that the cheque was drawn on an account standing in another name. The court found that the complaint had been initiated against the wrong person and that there was no infirmity in the trial court's view. The acquittal was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with when the cheque, notice, and complaint were directed against a person different from the account holder and drawer.

Analysis: The complaint proceeded on the basis that the accused was liable on the dishonoured cheque, but the evidence showed that the cheque was drawn on an account standing in the name of another person. The notice under the cheque dishonour provision was also issued to the person arrayed as accused, not to the actual drawer. Since liability in such a prosecution lies against the drawer of the cheque, the complaint against a wrong person was held to be unsustainable. The appellate court found no infirmity in the trial court's assessment that the prosecution had not been initiated against the correct person.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the appeal failed.

---