Cheque dishonour case dismissed as drawee died during clearance process under Section 138 N.I. Act

Gujarat HC upheld trial court's acquittal in dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 N.I. Act. The cheque was issued to complainant's father for debt repayment, but drawee died during clearance process. Complainant subsequently positioned himself as payee and issued statutory notice. HC found no Section 138 offence could be attributed under these circumstances. Trial court properly considered evidence and legal precedents in reaching acquittal decision. HC agreed with trial court's findings, found no legal infirmity, and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) of CrPC, 1973 - Cheque dishonored - Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act - Legal heirs' right to file complaint after payee's death - Consideration for the cheque - Holder in due course status of complainant.

Analysis:
The appellant, the original complainant, filed an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the Trial Court in a case involving a dishonored cheque. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 1,00,000 as a loan and issued a cheque in favor of the complainant's deceased father. After the father's death, the complainant deposited the cheque, which was returned due to "account closed." The complainant then sent a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and filed a complaint when the amount was not returned.

The appellant argued that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused, contending that the cheque was given as collateral security and had consideration, thus falling under Section 138 of the NI Act. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in B. I. Zala Vs. Shanku Concrete (Pvt.) Ltd, the appellant sought to establish the legal basis for the complaint and the notice issued.

On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the payee had died before the cheque was dishonored, making the complainant ineligible to file the complaint as a holder in due course. Referring to Section 138(b) of the NI Act and the Karnataka High Court's decision in Koya Moideen Vs. Hariharan, the respondent's counsel supported the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused.

Upon review, the High Court found that the complainant could not be considered a holder in due course as the cheque was issued in favor of the deceased father. The Court agreed with the Trial Court's reasoning that the complainant's legal position did not align with the requirements of Section 138 of the NI Act. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing that no interference was necessary, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal of the accused.

---