Cheque Liability Must Be Proved: Acquittal Upheld Where Debt Was Not Established Under Negotiable Instruments Law

In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The alleged friendly loan was found doubtful because of limited acquaintance, no documentary proof, and an improbable account of the transaction, while the defence version of a blank cheque given to another person, prior repayment, and reporting of the cheque as missing was supported by contemporaneous material and corroborative testimony. As the foundational liability was not established, the appellate acquittal disclosed no perversity or legal infirmity and revision was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the acquittal recorded by the appellate court suffered from any infirmity warranting interference in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The complainant's version of a friendly loan was found doubtful on the surrounding circumstances, including the limited acquaintance between the parties, the absence of documentary proof of the alleged loan, and the improbability of the claimed transaction as narrated. The defence that the cheque had been given blank to another person, repayment had already been made, and the cheque had been reported missing was supported by contemporaneous intimation and corroborative testimony. On the evidence, the existence of a legally enforceable liability was not established.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the complainant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal recorded by the appellate court suffered from any infirmity warranting interference in revision.

Analysis: The revisional court found no error in the appellate court's appreciation of evidence. Once the foundational fact of a legally enforceable debt was not proved, the acquittal could not be said to suffer from perversity or legal infirmity. No basis for revisional interference was made out.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and interference in revision was declined.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed after affirming that the cheque liability was not proved and that the respondent's acquittal did not call for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the complainant fails to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the defence version is supported by credible contemporaneous material, the acquittal cannot be interfered with in revision absent perversity or legal error.

---