9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against acquittal u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on failure to establish legally enforceable debt and doubt regarding cheque authenticity.
Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Legally enforceable debt and cheque authenticity The appellant filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Magistrate acquitted the respondent due to failure to establish the cheque was for a legally enforceable debt and doubt about the cheque's authenticity. The appellant challenged this acquittal, arguing the dishonored cheque acknowledged a debt from an agreement. The respondent contended the cheque was not for a legally enforceable debt and raised doubt about its authenticity. The Magistrate found the cheque was issued after the agreement's expiry, leading to the conclusion that the debt was not legally enforceable. The Magistrate's decision was supported by a previous ruling where a debt was deemed unenforceable due to a time-barred cheque issuance. Issue 2: Acknowledgement of debt and limitation The defence claimed the dishonored cheque did not relate to a legally enforceable debt, stating the cheque was not written by the respondent and was a blank cheque. The appellant argued the cheque itself acknowledged the debt, but the respondent's claim of a blank cheque required expert handwriting analysis to refute. The Magistrate found the cheque was not a valid acknowledgment u/r 18 of the Limitation Act as it was issued after the agreement's expiration. A previous ruling supported this stance, stating a time-barred debt cannot lead to a conviction u/s 138 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal based on lack of legally enforceable debt and cheque authenticity doubts.
|
