https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359927 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. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 May 2018 17:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359927 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359927