The appellant and the respondent were the shareholders of M s S B Pvt Ltd and the appellant agreed t...........

The appellant and the respondent were the shareholders of M/s. S.B. Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant agreed to transfer his shares standing in the names of his group associates to the respondent. The payment was to be made by way of eight postdated cheques of different amounts. Two cheques dated 15.2.1991 for Rs. 1,50,000/- and another cheque dated 15.5.1991 for Rs. 1,50,000/- were returned by the banks with the endorsement not arranged for no funds”. The appellant issued notices and having failed to receive payment, filed complaints before the Chief Judicial magistrate at Karnal. The Magistrate issued summons for appearance of the drawer, which respondent challenged by criminal revision before P and H High Court. The High Court quashed the proceedings on the short ground that the cheques in dispute being postdated cheques, the provisions of section 138 were not attracted as such no offence was made out. The payee filed Special Leave petition before the Supreme Court. In view of the above facts, you are required to explain the following under the provisions of the NH. Act, 1881.

(i) The concept of the post-dated cheques and where such cheques become operative in relation to the drawer and drawee.

(ii) What shall be the decision of the Apex Court of our country. Whether the appeal will be allowed or the appeal order to be set aside.           (5 marks)