TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") is the question involved in this appeal. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 18-9-2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 2890 of 2007. 3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix : Appellant kept two blank cheques in his office along with some stamp papers. They were said to have been stolen from his office. Information as regards missing of the said cheques was also given to the bank. He lodged a First Information Report with regard thereto, stating : "... On my return to Digras, I found that the cheques and the stamp worth Rs. 50 bearing only my signatures had been stolen, therefore, to prevent any misuse of my cheques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his own bankers about the loss/theft of the cheque, with no intention to make payment thereof, rather showing that right from the time he issued the cheque, he had intention to cheat and defraud the complainant by making false representations and thus, the accused has wilfully committed an offence punishable under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 420 IPC and is liable to be punished accordingly." 4. It is not in dispute that the Superintendent of Police, Digras has issued a certificate showing that FIR No. 57 of 2003 arising out of the First Information Report filed by the appellant before the Station House Officer, Digras had been closed. It is furthermore not in dispute that the appellant in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety does not disclose an offence under section 138 of the Act. 8. Mr. Gulshan Rai Nagpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, would contend that the appellant had lodged a false First Information Report with regard to the purported theft of the cheques which having been found to be not true and, thus, it is evident that he had resorted to various proceedings to pre-empt the drawee of the cheques to obtain lawful payments due from him. 9. Section 138 of the Act reads as under : "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, 'debt or other liability' means a legally enforceable debt or other liability." 10. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would clearly go to show that by reason thereof a legal fiction has been created. A legal fiction, as is well known, although is required to be given full effect, has its own limitations. It cannot be taken recourse to for any purpose other than the one mentioned in the statute itself. In State of A.P. v. A.P. Pensioners Association [2005] 13 SCC 161 this Court held : "... In other words, all the consequences ordinarily flowing from a rule would be given effect to if the rule otherwise does not limit the opera....