Advance intimation cannot defeat cheque dishonour prosecution when the cheque is issued for liability and later dishonoured.

Advance intimation to a payee not to present a cheque does not, by itself, defeat prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court applied the settled position that once a cheque is issued towards a debt or liability and is later dishonoured on presentation, the penal provision is attracted, subject to the statutory ingredients. The drawer cannot escape liability merely by issuing an earlier request or stop-payment-type intimation, especially where the earlier view relied on had been overruled. The complaint and the order refusing discharge were sustained, and the petition was rejected on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether prior intimation to the payee not to present the cheque for encashment precludes prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The plea that the drawer had asked the payee to cancel the cheques and not present them in the bank was tested against the settled law under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court noted that the earlier view relied upon by the petitioner stood overruled, and that a drawer cannot avoid the penal consequences of cheque dishonour merely by issuing an advance request or stop-payment-type intimation. Once the cheque is issued towards a debt or liability and is dishonoured on presentation, the offence is attracted, subject to the statutory ingredients of Section 138.

Conclusion: The prior intimation did not negate the offence under Section 138, and the petition seeking quashment failed.

Final Conclusion: The complaint and the order refusing discharge were sustained, and the petition was rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Advance intimation to the payee not to present a cheque does not, by itself, bar prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the cheque is thereafter presented and dishonoured.

---