https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362074 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not to fail merely because the complainant was alleged to be an unlicensed money lender; the Money Lenders Act bar was treated as directed to civil suits and execution, not as an automatic defence to cheque dishonour proceedings. On the evidence, the cheque, dishonour memo and admitted signature established issuance and dishonour, while the defence evidence was found insufficient to displace the complainant's case. The acquittal was reversed because the debt was treated as legally enforceable and the ingredients of Section 138 were proved. en-us Mon, 11 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:29:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362074 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not to fail merely because the complainant was alleged to be an unlicensed money lender; the Money Lenders Act bar was treated as directed to civil suits and execution, not as an automatic defence to cheque dishonour proceedings. On the evidence, the cheque, dishonour memo and admitted signature established issuance and dishonour, while the defence evidence was found insufficient to displace the complainant's case. The acquittal was reversed because the debt was treated as legally enforceable and the ingredients of Section 138 were proved. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362074