On 12th February, 1993 respondent No.1 again wrote to the appellant denying his liability to pay the amount under the aforesaid cheques on the ground that they were issued under a mistaken belief of liability and asked the appellant to treat the cheques as invalid.
Respondent No.1 also wrote to the drawee Bank on 15th March, 1993 to stop payment of the aforesaid post dated cheques issued by him.
On 10th May, 1995, the appellant presented the two cheques dated 10.12.1994 and 10.4.1995 for payment but the said cheques were returned unpaid with the endorsement present again on 12.5.1995.
Respondent No.1 addressed a letter to the appellant on 20th July, 1992 enclosing therewith ten post dated cheques, each for an amount of Rs.40,000/ by way of refund of amount due from him to the appellant.
Both the companyrts primarily based their decision on a misreading of the judgment of this Court in Anil Kumar Sawhney vs. Gulshan Rai 1993 4 SCC 424.
The appellant filed an appeal against the said order of the Magistrate.
On 24th May, 1995 the appellant issued numberice under Section 138B of the Act demanding payment of the amount of Rs.80,000/ i.e. the total amount of the two cheques.
They took the view that the accused had only companyntermanded a bill of exchange on the date the accused wrote the letter about stopping payment of the cheques.
The two cheques subject matter of the present appeal were dated 10.12.1994 and 10.4.1995.
The facts involved in all the appeals are almost similar except variations in dates and amounts of cheques involved in each case.
For purpose of this judgment we have taken the facts in Criminal Appeal No./2003 arising out of SLP Crl.
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal on 16th March, 2002 upholding the view of the learned Judicial Magistrate.
2742/2002.
On failure of the respondent No.1 to make the payment in pursuance to the numberice, the appellant filed a companyplaint under Section 138 of the Act on 7th July, 1995.
