Legally enforceable liability in cheque dishonour cases can defeat interference with acquittal where proof remains inadequate.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, interference with acquittal was declined because the complainant did not prove a legally enforceable debt or liability. The defence case that the cheque was an undated security cheque remained plausible, and the ledger relied on by the complainant was not exhibited and did not show date-wise or year-wise transactions. Since the underlying bills were stated to relate to 2006 while the cheque was issued in 2010, recovery on those bills was treated as time-barred. The Trial Court's view was found neither illegal nor perverse, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the respondent in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference, and whether the complainant had established a legally recoverable liability supporting the cheque.

Analysis: The complaint was based on a cheque allegedly issued towards discharge of liability, but the defence asserted that the cheque was an undated security cheque. The evidence showed that the ledger relied upon by the complainant was not an exhibited document and did not reflect date-wise or year-wise transactions. The underlying bills were stated to pertain to 2006, while the cheque was issued in 2010, leading to the conclusion that recovery on those bills was time-barred. On this material, the Trial Court's view that the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable liability was found to be neither illegal nor perverse.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the acquittal, and the leave petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remained undisturbed because the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, interference with acquittal is not warranted where the complainant fails to prove the existence of a legally enforceable liability and the defence version that the cheque was only a security cheque remains plausible on the evidence.

---