<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (3) TMI 771 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302161</link>
    <description>Part-payment of a cheque liability before presentation does not, by itself, defeat prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt and the balance remained unpaid. The court construed the phrase &quot;the said amount of money&quot; purposively to mean the cheque amount after deducting proved prior payments, but held that criminal liability is avoided only if the drawer establishes full discharge of the amount due within the statutory time. On the facts, only partial payments were proved and the acquittal was found unsustainable, so conviction was held to be justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 May 2022 14:33:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 771 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302161</link>
      <description>Part-payment of a cheque liability before presentation does not, by itself, defeat prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt and the balance remained unpaid. The court construed the phrase &quot;the said amount of money&quot; purposively to mean the cheque amount after deducting proved prior payments, but held that criminal liability is avoided only if the drawer establishes full discharge of the amount due within the statutory time. On the facts, only partial payments were proved and the acquittal was found unsustainable, so conviction was held to be justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>