HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.387 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The complainant filed this appeal against acquittal of the 1st respondent/accused recorded by the lower Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). Car bearing No.AP10- M-8218 belonging to the complainant was agreed to be purchased by the accused for Rs.1,52,000/-. Out of the said amount, he paid token advance amount of Rs.17,000/- in cash to the complainant. He delivered demand draft for Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant on 19.11.2003. For the balance consideration of Rs.25,000/- , the accused had drawn Ex.P.1 cheque dated 20.11.2003 for Rs.25,000/- in favour of the complainant. The said cheque when presented to the banker of the accused, was dishonoured as per Ex.P.2 cheque return memo. There was exchange of notices between the parties as per Exs.P.3 to P.5. Thereupon, the complainant filed private complaint in the lower Court against the accused alleging the above offence. Though the lower Court acquitted the accused on an alleged admission made by the complainant/PW.1 in his cross-examination, the said admission is not clear and it is not with reference to Exs.D.1 and D.2. Exs.D.1 and D.2 are only in respect of payment of Rs.17,000/- in cash and delivery of demand draft for Rs.1,10,000/- respectively. But, on another ground, the complainant is not entitled to enforce the liability under Ex.P.1 cheque. The appellant’s counsel states that the complainant has given sale letter and clearance certificate to the accused and also delivered physical possession of the car. There is no dispute that the complainant did not complete the sale transaction by way of transferring Registration Certificate (R.C.) of the car in the name of the accused. Because of non-transfer of R.C. in his favour, the accused filed civil suit against the complainant in Civil Court as per O.S.No.129 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for recovery of damages etc. In the absence of completing the sale transaction by way of transfer of R.C. of the car in favour of the accused, the complainant cannot enforce his claim for balance of sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- by presenting Ex.P.1 cheque. Until transfer of Registration Certificate of the car in favour of the accused, the alleged debt or liability for Rs.25,000/- in the transaction of sale of the car, is not enforceable in law. Therefore, I find that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability in this case. For this reason, the complainant was not able to make out a case under Section 138 of the Act against the accused. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 16th November, 2011. PNV