Shankar drew a cheque in favour of Surendar. After having issued the cheque, Shankar requested Surendar not to present the cheque for payment and…

As per the facts stated in the question, Shankar (drawer) after having issued the cheque, informs Surendar (drawee) not to present the cheque for payment and also gave a stop payment request to the bank in respect of the cheque issued to Surendar. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a penal provision in the sense that once a cheque is drawn on an account maintained by the drawer with his banker for payment of any amount of money to another person out of that account for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or liability, is informed by the bank unpaid either because of insufficiency of funds to honour the cheques or the amount exceeding the arrangement made with the bank, such a person shall be deemed to have committed an offence. Once a cheque is issued by the drawer, a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 follows and merely because the drawer issues a notice thereafter to the drawee or to the bank for stoppage of payment, it will not preclude an action under Section 138. Also, Section 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, specifies absolute liability of the drawer of the cheque for commission of an offence under section 138 of the Act. Section 140 states that it shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under section 138 that the drawer had no reason to believe when he issued the cheque that the cheque may be dishonoured on presentment for the reasons stated in that section. Accordingly, the act of Shankar, i.e., his request to stop payment constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.