Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act required interference on the ground that the cheque was issued towards an enforceable debt or liability and that the statutory presumptions stood unrebutted.
Analysis: The contract between the parties did not refer to the cheque, and the cheque was treated as a security instrument unconnected with any admitted or crystallised liability. The complainant took inconsistent stands regarding the manner in which the cheque came into possession, and the non-examination of the person said to have handed over the cheque justified an adverse inference. The cheque was presented before the report relied upon to establish inferior quality of goods, so the complainant had not shown that any liability had crystallised by the date of presentation or dishonour. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the trial court's view is perverse or legally untenable, and the view taken below was a possible one supported by the record.
Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be interfered with, and the cheque was not shown to have been issued against an existing enforceable debt or liability.