Court sets aside judgments due to lack of proof of consideration, accused to be refunded fine

The High Court allowed the criminal revisions, setting aside the lower courts' judgments. It held that without due endorsement and proof of consideration, the complainant failed to establish holder in due course status. The complaints were rejected, and the accused were directed to be refunded the fine paid.

---

---

Issues involved: Criminal revisions against conviction and sentence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Endorsement on cheques and holder in due course
The accused filed revisions against conviction u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant filed private complaints as holder in due course of cheques issued by the accused. The accused objected to the complaints' maintainability due to lack of endorsement on the cheques by the original lender. Both lower courts presumed due endorsement and found the accused guilty.

Issue 2: Interpretation of due endorsement
The main issue was whether the holder's signature on the cheques constituted due endorsement, giving the complainant the right as holder in due course. The High Court considered legal precedents where due endorsement was crucial for establishing holder in due course status. The court emphasized the necessity of proving consideration for becoming the possessor of the cheques.

Judgment:
The High Court allowed the criminal revisions, setting aside the lower courts' judgments. It held that without due endorsement and proof of consideration, the complainant failed to establish holder in due course status. The complaints were rejected, and the accused were directed to be refunded the fine paid.

---