Cheque dishonour claim failed where the alleged loan and legally enforceable liability were not proved, and acquittal stood.

A complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act failed because the complainant did not prove the alleged loan transaction or that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The defence that the cheque was given as a blank signed security cheque in connection with a kuri transaction was accepted, supported by the complainant's role in the kuri business, the improbability of advancing the claimed loan in the circumstances, and an account extract showing the account had been closed long before the cheque date. The acquittal was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved the loan transaction and the issuance of the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The complainant's claim of a loan of Rs.10 lakhs and issuance of the cheque was assessed against the defence that the cheque had been handed over as a blank signed security cheque in connection with a kuri transaction. The evidence, including the complainant's managerial role in the kuri business, the improbability of advancing such a large loan in the circumstances, and the account extract showing closure of the account long before the cheque date, supported the defence version and undermined the complainant's case.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to prove the alleged loan and the issuance of the cheque towards discharge of liability, and the acquittal was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

---