TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to him, he was a dealer in house hold articles. Accused also did have a shop of the similar articles somewhere else.The accused used to purchase articles on credit from the shop of the complainant. On this count amount was due from the accused. He issued Ext.P1 cheque. It was a post dated one bearing date 24.3.1998, for an amount of Rs. 58,520/- drawn on State Bank of India Thodupuzha. It was pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time towards the complainant. So no case to attract Section 138 had been made out; the accused defended the case. 2. Appreciating the evidence on record the court below found that Ext.P1 cheque was not one issued in discharge of the liability that the accused had incurred towards the complainant. 3. It is submitted by the appellant that going by Ext.D3 and Ext.P8, the accused had admitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue cannot be stated to be one issued otherwise than towards discharge of the liability. 4. Ext.D1 dated 9.2.1998 is the order that the accused had placed with the complainant. It disclosed that he was ordering 28 numbers of mixies and that he was enclosing there with Ext.P1 cheque for Rs. 58,520/- being the price amount for 28 number of mixies ordered. Order was placed on 9.2.1998 and the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other transactions could be done later. Thus even before the date of the cheque, the accused had informed the complainant that it shall not be presented to the bank because of the failure of the complainant himself in not supplying the items ordered as per Ext.D1, enclosing there with Ext.PI post dated cheque. Thus it is clear that the accused had not incurred the liability for the amount cover....