AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The learned trial Judge has acquitted respondent (hereinafter referred as ''accused'') of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ''the Act''). Therefore, appellant (hereinafter referred as ''complainant'') is before this court.
I have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for accused.
It is established from evidence on record that complainant and accused had entered into an agreement of sale dated 04.02.1998, wherein complainant has agreed to transfer a flat in favour of accused for total consideration of Rs. 7,80,000/-. On the date of agreement of sale dated 04.02.1998, accused had paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to complainant. It was agreed between parties, after discharge of obligations of agreement entered into between parties on 04.02.1998 and registration of sale deed, complainant has to encash the cheque. The complainant has failed to discharge his obligations under agreement of sale dated 04.02.1998, however, he presented the cheque which was dishonoured. The complainant had caused a legal notice for which accused had caused reply.
It is the contention of accused, in terms of agreement of sale dated 04.02.1998, complainant has to execute a deed of declaration. It is the case of accused that liability to honour the cheque was subject to condition that complainant has to discharge his obligations under agreement of sale dated 04.02.1998. The complainant without discharging his obligations has presented the cheque. There was no existing legally enforceable liability on date of issuance of cheque. The cheque was issued to discharge liability which had to accrue on a later date under agreement of sale dated 04.02.1998, subject to discharge of obligations stated therein.
It is established from evidence on record that on the date of presentation of cheque, complainant had not discharged his obligations under agreement of sale dated 04.02.1998.
The law is fairly well settled that if a cheque is issued to discharge liability or debt to arise in future, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, till fulfillment of such conditions, legally enforceable liability would not arise and an offence u/s 138 of the Act is not attracted.
In the case on hand, accused had issued post dated cheque in terms of agreement of sale dated 04.02.1998. The complainant has failed to discharge his obligations under the agreement of sale dated 04.02.1998. The complainant without discharging his obligations under the agreement of sale dated 04.02.1998 has presented cheque.
As already stated, accused had not incurred any liability on the date of presentation of cheque. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.
In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.