JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral): In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the quashing of the complaint and the proceedings arising out of the said criminal complaint, being, No. 105/3 of 1999 filed by the respondents against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint and the proceedings are not maintainable and deserve to be quashed because no offence either under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be have been made out by a bare reading of the criminal complaint in as much as, on the own showing of the complainant, the cheques in question were not issued by the petitioners in discharge of any existing debt or an existing liability. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I feel disinclined to agree with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Vaid because the contents of the complaint do point out to the existence of a mercantile arrangement between the parties whereby the petitioners had kept in deposit a number of blank Bank cheques with the respondent-complainant and it was non the basis of the assurance and guarantee of these blank Bank cheques that the respondent-complainant company used to send goods to the petitioners accused because the arrangement included the authorization to the respondent-Company by the petitioners that on despatch of the goods by it to the petitioners, it can fill up the amount in the cheques in question representing the sale price of the goods and the date on the cheque would be the same as the date of the despatch of the goods. The complainant in the complaint has clearly averred that this mercantile arrangement was based upon and emanated from a written agreement between the parties and it was on the basis of this writ agreement that the petitioners had deposited the cheques and had also authorized the respondent-Company to fill up the amount and the date on the cheques as soon as the goods were despatched so that the amount filled in would represent the price of the goods which the respondent-Company was entitled to receive from the petitioners and the date filled in the cheque represented the date when the goods were supplied. By this mercantile arrangement, the respondent-Company had assured to itself that the supply of goods on credit (in a manner of speaking would not jeopardize its commercial interests because the "credit" would be for a very short time in the sense that the cheques would be presented to the banker for encashment and in a matter of days the amount would be realized and credited to the account of the respondent-Company. 4. Based on the aforesaid narration of facts, it does not lie in the month of the petitioners to urge that the cheques were not issued in discharge of any existing debt or an existing liability. Yes, undoubtedly blank cheques might have been handed over to the respondent-Company before the debt or liability had actually accrued or would have come into existence, but that is not relevant at all for our purposes because the handing over of the blank cheques would not constitute any transaction of any consequence between the parties because the culpability component of the transaction would arise only the moment the cheques were filed in and that moment could not and did not arise unless the goods were actually dispatched by the respondent-Company. The moment of reckoning, therefore, would be the despatch of goods by the respondent-Company because that alone would entitle the respondent-Company to fill in the cheques qua the amount representing the price of goods and the date, representing the date of despatch of the goods. The moment of reckoning, therefore, would be the despatch of goods by the respondent-Company because that alone would entitle the respondent-Company to fill in the cheques qua the amount representing the price of goods and the date, representing the date of despatch of the goods. That surely, therefore, would be in discharge of an existing debt or a liability because on the date the goods are despatched, the liability to pay the price of goods would accrue and would remain so from that moment onwards and only in discharge of such a liability would the cheques be filled in, representing the price of goods and the date of despatch of the goods. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the complaint does make out a prima facie commission of offence. This petition is not maintainable and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.