https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274301 The appeal against the acquittal under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. The court found that the lack of evidence establishing the debt and the timing of the cheque issuance in relation to the closure of the bank account supported the trial court's decision. The appellant's claims of a borrowed amount and discrepancies in evidence did not sufficiently prove the debt. Additionally, the debt from 1985 and the cheque issued in 1990 potentially exceeded the legal limitation period for debt recovery, as per the Explanation to section 138 of the Act. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Apr 2019 15:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274301 The appeal against the acquittal under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. The court found that the lack of evidence establishing the debt and the timing of the cheque issuance in relation to the closure of the bank account supported the trial court's decision. The appellant's claims of a borrowed amount and discrepancies in evidence did not sufficiently prove the debt. Additionally, the debt from 1985 and the cheque issued in 1990 potentially exceeded the legal limitation period for debt recovery, as per the Explanation to section 138 of the Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274301