JUDGMENT : R.C. Khulbe, J. 1. This appeal, preferred by the appellant/complainant u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2014 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur (U.S. Nagar) in Criminal Case No. 992 of 2013, whereby the Court below has acquitted the accused/respondent Ashirvad u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Facts, in brief, are that the appellant/ complainant filed a complaint with the averments that he is an agriculturist by profession whereas the respondent-accused is having a Seed Plant in Jaspur. In the year 2013, the accused purchased wheat for his plant from the complainant, in lieu of which, he gave the cheque no. 007269 dated 5.1.2013 drawn at Punjab National Bank, Branch Jaspur with the assurance that as and when it is presented, the same will be en-cashed. The complainant thereafter deposited the said cheque within the time prescribed in the cheque, for payment in his account at SBI Branch Jaspur. But the bank dishonoured the said cheque showing the reason "exceeds arrangement" and informed the complainant accordingly. The complainant informed the accused about the same but he kept on avoiding the same. Finally, the accused sent a legal notice through his advocate on 26.4.2013 requesting the applicant to make payment of cheque within 15 days of receipt of notice which was served on the complainant on 29.4.2013 but even after service, neither the accused gave any reply and nor did he make payment of the said cheque. 3. The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his affidavit u/s 200 Cr.P.C. besides certain other documents in evidence. The accused was thereafter summoned to face trial u/s 138 of the Act. The accused appeared and his statement was recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C. 4. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant/ complainant was also recorded in the Court as PW-1. Subsequent thereto, the statement of accused was recorded in the Court below u/s 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence was adduced by the accused in his defence. Thereafter, the opportunity was closed. 5. The Court below, vide the judgment, under challenge, has acquitted the respondent u/s 138 of the Act. Hence this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant. 6. Subsequent thereto, the statement of accused was recorded in the Court below u/s 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence was adduced by the accused in his defence. Thereafter, the opportunity was closed. 5. The Court below, vide the judgment, under challenge, has acquitted the respondent u/s 138 of the Act. Hence this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Before proceeding any further, it is appropriate to mention Section 138 of the Act which is as follows:- "138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years] or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless: (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque 20 [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation - For the purposes of this section "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability." 8. The explanation appended to Section 138 of the Act explicitly explains the meaning of the expression "debt or other liability." Section 138 of the Act treats dishonoured cheque as an offence if the cheque is issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. It clearly means that in order to attract an offence under Section 138 of the Act, there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque. The drawal of the cheque in discharge of existing or past adjudicated liability is sine qua non for bringing an offence under Section 138 of the Act. I am fortified in my view with the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in M/s Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and Another, 2014 (2) DCR 417 , wherein, it was held as under in paragraph no. 13:- "13. The explanation appended to Section 138 explains the meaning of the expression debt or other liability for the purpose of Section 138. This expression means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Section 138 treats dishonoured cheque as an offence, if the cheque has been issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. The explanation leaves no manner of doubt that to attract an offence under Section 138, there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque. In other words, drawal of the cheque in discharge of existing or past adjudicated liability is sine qua non for bringing an offence under Section 138. If a cheque is issued as an advance payment for purchase of the goods and for any reason purchase order is not carried to its logical conclusion either because of its cancellation or otherwise and material or goods for which purchase order was placed is not supplied, in our considered view, the cheque cannot be held to have been drawn for an exiting debt or liability. The payment by cheque in the nature of advance payment indicates that at the time of drawal of cheque, there was no existing liability." 9. The appellant/complainant Rampal Singh appeared in the Trial Court as PW-1. In his examination-in-chief, he has corroborated the averments made in his complaint. According to him, the accused gave the cheque, in question to him in lieu of purchasing the wheat for his seed plant. When the said cheque was presented in the bank for payment, it was dishonoured by the bank with the remark exceeds arrangement. The complainant then sent a notice to the accused/respondent but even after its receipt, neither did he reply the notice nor did he make the payment of cheque. But in cross-examination, he stated that he has 25 acres of land in Village Raipur. He further stated that his son Ramesh Kumar is also running his own seed plant since 2013. His son Ramesh Kumar had sold this wheat to the accused Ashirvad. This cheque too was given by Ashirvad to his son Ramesh. Ramesh had to receive about 25-30 lakh rupees for which he has taken a number of cheques from the respondent-Ashirvad. Neither I do have any receipt of selling the wheat nor do I have any bill. After taking the cheques from Ashirvad, his son has filed cases in the names of several persons; even in his name, one case has been filed. He is not acquainted with the advocate who had sent the notice. He even did not give any affidavit in the Court. Whatever document was given to him by his son after getting it typed, he put the signatures without reading the same. 10. From the evidence of PW-1 Rampal Singh, it is clear that he did not sell the wheat to the accused Ashirvad but it was sold by his son. The complainant also failed to prove that he sold the wheat worth Rs. 9.80 lakh to the accused. 11. In the present case, as per the evidence of PW-1 Rampal Singh, the so-called wheat was sold by his son Ramesh to the respondent/accused, and not by the complainant/ appellant herein. Although, the questioned cheque was issued in favour of the appellant but the respondent was not liable to pay any money to the appellant. 11. In the present case, as per the evidence of PW-1 Rampal Singh, the so-called wheat was sold by his son Ramesh to the respondent/accused, and not by the complainant/ appellant herein. Although, the questioned cheque was issued in favour of the appellant but the respondent was not liable to pay any money to the appellant. Moreover, if any wheat crop was sold by his son Ramesh, who is the son of complainant, then it was the duty of appellant to produce his son before the Trial Court to prove his case. However, as per the evidence of PW-1 Rampal Singh, his son Ramesh, though, was present before the Court but he never appeared in the witness box to prove the factum of debt or any other liability. 12. On a re-appreciation and re-assessment of the evidence, I find that the trial Court has thus, considered all the aspects of the case and rightly reached a conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the case under Section 138 of the Act and thereby rightly acquitted the accused. The acquittal passed by the trial Court, therefore, cannot be set aside without any sound and sufficient ground. It is a settled law that if two views are possible, then a view which supports acquittal of the accused should not be interfered with, lightly. 13. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no substance in the appeal. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/ compliance.