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 leave to appeal against acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be granted where the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt and also lacked a valid money-lending licence.
Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is warranted only for very substantial and compelling reasons, and two possible views must ordinarily favour the accused. The alleged loan rested on Bahi entries and incomplete account material, which did not satisfactorily prove the advancement of money, the mode of calculation of liability, or the outstanding balance. Such entries were treated as insufficient by themselves to prove an enforceable liability. The complainant also admitted carrying on money-lending activity without the licence contemplated by the Punjab Registration of Money-lenders Act, 1938, and the statutory bar under that Act meant that recovery of such a loan could not be enforced in the manner sought. On these facts, the cheque was not shown to have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability.
Conclusion: The acquittal was not shown to be illegal, perverse, or without jurisdiction, and no ground for appellate interference was made out. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.