Conditional liability in hire purchase cheques may defeat Section 138 enforceability after repossession and sale.

A cheque issued in a hire purchase transaction was treated as not representing an enforceable unconditional liability after the vehicle was repossessed and sold under the agreement. On those facts, the liability could not be unilaterally fixed by the complainant after seizure and sale; any outstanding amount had to be worked out under the agreement or through civil adjudication. The text emphasises that for Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a cheque must reflect a supported and unconditional debt, and where consideration fails or the transaction remains conditional, the cheque may lose enforceability. The trial court's view was accepted and no interference was found warranted in the appeal against acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference, particularly in view of the hire purchase arrangement, subsequent seizure and sale of the vehicle, and the contention that the cheque represented only a conditional liability.

Analysis: The cheque was issued in the context of a hire purchase transaction, and the complainant thereafter repossessed and sold the vehicle under the agreement. On those facts, the Court accepted the trial court's view that the complainant could not unilaterally assert the outstanding amount after seizure and sale, and that the real liability, if any, had to be ascertained in the manner provided by the agreement or by civil adjudication. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that a cheque must represent an unconditional and supported liability, and that where the complainant's own subsequent conduct shows that the original transaction was treated as still open and conditional, the cheque loses its character as an enforceable negotiable instrument. The Court also accepted the trial court's conclusion that the cheque suffered from failure of consideration and that no interference was warranted in an appeal against acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act failed.

---