In general cheques are issued and they are deposited within couple of days. In certain cases PDCs are also issued, that means the status or any eventuality may not be known to drawer from the date of issue to date of cheque...So..
1. If the attachment by any govt agency (CBI, Court, Sales Tax, Income Tax, excise) is prior to the date of issue, then it is fraud also by drawer, a case under S.420 can also be made out for willfully issuing a dud cheque.
2. If the attachment is after the cheque issue date (generally when cheque is lying with payee for long or a PDC cheque), then drawer cannot be convicted, but the case will move and drawer has to prove that attachment by CBI etc was after the date of issue.
(Court cannot convict even if liability is proved and every other ingredients are proved, court cannot also convict by taking a logical line that drawer was informed by the notice and he knew about freeze as well as dishonor....)
For the simple reason, as soon as the account is frozen or attached, then it is no longer being maintained by the drawer (pre condition to S.138), it is not in the control of drawer..
Conviction is the perverse order of the trial court if it is ordered after proof of such fact that account was frozen after the issue of the cheque.
Despite the fact that parliament has realised that S.138 is too harsh and too much of a pain for accused, the trial courts are hell bent on convicting the accused. With due respect these courts are working more on common sense, (if the cheque is there, that means liability and convict), but they must realise strict interpretation of statue is required in criminal case, which they are not doing.
You are left with no option but to fight, with due respect these are complex issues requiring indepth interpretation and are beyond the level of Hon / Ld trial courts, higher courts can only give authoritative pronouncements. Take the help of above citation of Delhi HC and prepare your argument.