NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 — Section 138 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — Dishonour of Cheque — Advance Payment for Purchase Order — Absence of subsisting debt or liability — Non-applicability of Section 138.
(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 138, Explanation — Dishonour of Cheque — Post-dated cheque issued as advance payment for purchase of goods — Non-supply of goods and cancellation of purchase order — Criminal liability thereunder — Drawal of cheque in discharge of an existing or past adjudicated liability is a sine qua non to attract Section 138.
[Paras 12 & 13] — To attract an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, a legally enforceable debt or other liability must be subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque
. Where a post-dated cheque is issued as an advance payment for the supply of goods under a purchase order, and the order is subsequently cancelled without the goods being supplied, the cheque cannot be held to have been drawn for an existing debt or liability . The payment by cheque in the nature of advance payment indicates that at the time of drawal of the cheque, no existing liability had accrued .
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 138 — Civil Liability vs. Criminal Liability — Breach of contract condition requiring advance payment — Distinction.
[Para 19] — A condition in a contract requiring advance payment creates a contractual obligation, and a breach thereof may give rise to civil liability to make good any losses incurred by the seller
. However, breach of such a condition does not create criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act . For criminal liability to arise under Section 138, there must be a legally enforceable debt or liability subsisting on the date the cheque is drawn . The High Court erred in expanding the scope of Section 138 by equating contractual breach with criminal liability .
(C) Code of Criminal Procedure (2 of 1974), S. 482 — Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 138 — Quashing of summons order — High Court improperly setting aside Sessions Court's order quashing process.
[Paras 18, 19, 21 & 22] — The Delhi High Court erred in setting aside the Sessions Judge's order that had quashed the summons issued by the Magistrate
. Where no goods were supplied pursuant to purchase orders and the orders were cancelled prior to presentation of advance cheques, no offence under Section 138 is made out . Impugned High Court judgment set aside and the Sessions Court order quashing the process restored .
Judicial Outcome:
Appeal allowed
. Judgment of the Delhi High Court set aside . Order of the Additional Sessions Judge quashing the process/summons restored .
Cases Approved / Followed:
Swastik Coaters Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Brothers, 1997 Cri LJ 1942 (AP) — Approved
Shanku Concretes Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 2000 Cri LJ 1988 (Guj) — Approved
Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. v. Mac Industries Ltd., 1999 (1) CTC 6 (Mad) — Approved
Supply House v. Ullas, 2006 Cri LJ 4330 (Ker) — Approved
Cases Overruled / Disapproved:
Mojj Engineering Systems Ltd. v. A.B. Sugars Ltd., 154 (2008) DLT 579 (Del) — Overruled
