Lastly, we would refer to the decision by a
Three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Modi Cements
Ltd. Vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998) 3 S.C.C. 249 dealing
with a similar contention and interpreting Section 138 of
the Act. In that case, the Court referred to the earlier
decisions in the case of Electronics Trade and Technology
Development Corporation (1996) 2 SCC 739 and K.K.
Siddharthan Vs. T.P. Praveena Chandran (1996) 6 S.C.C.
369 and agreed that the legal proposition enunciated in the
aforesaid decisions to effect that if the cheque is
dishonoured, because of stop payment instruction to the
bank, Section 138 would get attracted..