Cheque issued under compromise did not prove enforceable debt, so acquittal in cheque dishonour case stood.

In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cheques issued pursuant to a compromise did not, by themselves, establish a fresh legally enforceable debt. The Court noted that the accused had already paid part of the compromise amount and that the compromise had not fully materialised as contemplated, so the complainant failed to prove the existence of a pre-existing liability. As the trial court's appreciation of evidence was found proper and not perverse or illegal, leave to appeal against acquittal was declined and the acquittal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against acquittal was warranted in a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the cheques were issued pursuant to a compromise and the existence of a legally enforceable debt was disputed.

Analysis: The record showed that the cheques were issued in pursuance of a compromise between the parties arising out of a joint business venture. The Court found that the accused had already paid part of the compromise amount and that the compromise itself had not fructified in the manner contemplated. Relying on the settled principle that a cheque issued merely in terms of a compromise does not, by itself, create a new liability, the Court held that the complainant had not established the existence of a pre-existing legally enforceable debt or liability. The findings of the trial court were found to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence and not shown to be perverse or illegal.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was not granted, and the acquittal was upheld.

---