1999 (2) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on was written by the respondent, though the signatures were not denied, the Magistrate gave benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondent. This acquittal is challenged in this appeal. 2. Learned Advocate Shri Kholkar, appearing on behalf of the appellant, took me through the record including the Agreement dated 13th June, 1991 under which the respondent had agreed to pay a sum of ₹ 1,53,724/ - to the appellant within a period of one year. He then pointed out that the dishonoured cheque in question, which was issued by the respondent on 19th July, 1996, amounts to acknowledgement of debt and, as such, the findings of the Magistrate that the debt was not legally recoverable are erroneous. He also urged before me that the expiry of per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the date of the agreement. The case of the complainant further is that the respondent did not pay the amount as agreed under the said Agreement dated 13th June, 1991, but on 19th July, 1996 the respondent issued cheque for ₹ 3,87,500/- and this cheque has bounced. 5. The defence had taken the stand that the dishonoured cheque was not in relation to any legally enforceable debt and, as such, the respondent could not be held guilty under section 138 of the said Act. The contention of learned Advocate for the appellant is that this cheque dated 19th July 1996 itself is an acknowledgement of debt and, as such, there is no merit in the submission of the defence that the liability under dishonoured cheque is not on account of legally enfor....