https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444361 To prove an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant had to show that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. That burden was not met because the account statement for the chit transaction was not produced and the evidence did not satisfactorily connect the cheque to the alleged liability. A prior civil finding that only a much smaller sum was due further weakened the claim for the cheque amount. Although the cheque was dishonoured, dishonour alone was insufficient without proof of a legally enforceable debt, and the acquittal was upheld because the trial court's appraisal of evidence was reasonable. en-us Thu, 14 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Oct 2023 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444361 To prove an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant had to show that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. That burden was not met because the account statement for the chit transaction was not produced and the evidence did not satisfactorily connect the cheque to the alleged liability. A prior civil finding that only a much smaller sum was due further weakened the claim for the cheque amount. Although the cheque was dishonoured, dishonour alone was insufficient without proof of a legally enforceable debt, and the acquittal was upheld because the trial court's appraisal of evidence was reasonable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 14 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444361