9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Whether dishonored cheques for repayment of time-barred debt constitute an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Summary: Issue 1: Consideration of dishonored cheques for time-barred debt under Section 138 of the Act The complainant lent a sum to the accused in 1994, with repayment agreed within a short period. Despite subsequent promises, the accused failed to repay the loan, leading to dishonored cheques in 1999. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing the debt as time-barred. However, the High Court held that the accused's promise to repay the time-barred debt without fresh consideration is valid. Referring to legal precedents, the Court emphasized the moral obligation to repay debts, even if time-barred. The Court noted that the accused's dishonored cheques constituted an agreement to pay the debt, making him liable under Section 138 of the Act. Issue 2: Legal Presumptions and Precedents The Court referred to Section 138 of the Act, which deems dishonor of cheques for insufficient funds as an offense. Legal presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the Act support the presumption of consideration for negotiable instruments. Citing the A.V. Murthy case, the Court highlighted that signing and delivering a cheque acknowledges a legally enforceable liability, even if time-barred. Following this precedent, the Court in the Ramakrishnan case held that dishonored cheques for time-barred debts do not exempt the drawer from liability under Section 138. Conclusion: The High Court overturned the Trial Court's acquittal, convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Act. The accused was sentenced to pay a specified amount, with a provision for imprisonment if the fine is not paid. The Court also ordered compensation to the complainant upon fine recovery. The judgment emphasized the legal implications of dishonored cheques for time-barred debts, upholding the complainant's right to seek redress under the Act.
|
