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 the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt so as to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the first appellate court's acquittal called for interference.
Analysis: The complainant's evidence and the loan agreement were accepted as establishing that the cheque was issued in connection with a loan transaction. The admission that the cheque had been given as security did not, by itself, exclude liability under Section 138, because a security cheque can be acted upon when the underlying debt has matured and remains unpaid. The accused did not produce material to show repayment or any circumstance showing that the cheque had not become enforceable. The challenge to the complainant's financial capacity also failed, since the evidence showed business activity and ownership of vehicles, and the defence did not rebut the complainant's version on a preponderance of probabilities.
Conclusion: The cheque was held to have been issued for discharge of a legally recoverable debt, dishonour attracted liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the acquittal recorded by the first appellate court was set aside.