Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability so as to attract section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: The accused relied on the use of the word "guarantee" in the prior complaint to contend that the cheque was only a security instrument and not issued towards repayment of a debt. The Court held that the complaint, read as a whole, clearly showed that money had been advanced as a loan on the assurance of repayment through the cheque, and the mere use of the word "guarantee" did not negate the existence of a legally enforceable liability. The Court also held that the trial court had misread the complaint and failed to apply the statutory presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Conclusion: The cheque was issued for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the acquittal could not be sustained. The accused was liable to be convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Ratio Decidendi: A cheque described as a guarantee or security does not cease to be one issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability where the surrounding facts show that it was obtained for repayment of a loan, and the presumption under section 139 operates unless rebutted.