2014 (2) TMI 1380 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - time limitation - section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - In the case on hand, even if the averments of complaint and evidence of complainant are accepted at their face value, dishonoured cheque was issued on 30.10.2001 to discharge the debt, which had become due on 20.05.1997. Therefore, I hold dishonoured cheque was issued to discharge time barred debt - The learned trial Judge taking into consideration material discrepancies in the evidence adduced by complainant and also having regard to question of limitation has held that complainant has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment can be sustained dehors affidavit evidence of accused. In the circumstances, there is no need to remand the matter to trial court. There are no reasons to interference with impugned judgment - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Dishonor of cheque under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Proof of legally recoverable debt/liability
- Time-barred debt as legally recoverable debt
- Affidavit evidence and its admissibility in court

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dishonor of cheque under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The judgment revolves around the dishonor of a cheque issued by the accused to the complainant for a sum of money. The complainant initiated a complaint under section 138 of the Act after the cheque was dishonored due to "want of funds." The court analyzed the circumstances under which the cheque was issued and the legal implications of such dishonor.

Issue 2: Proof of legally recoverable debt/liability
The court emphasized that under section 138 of the Act, the complainant must prove that the accused issued the cheque to discharge a legally recoverable debt/liability. Mere production of the cheque and reasons for dishonor are not sufficient. The complainant failed to provide evidence such as books of accounts to establish the debt owed by the accused, leading to a lack of proof of the debt being legally recoverable.

Issue 3: Time-barred debt as legally recoverable debt
A significant point of contention was whether a time-barred debt can be considered legally recoverable. The court referred to a judgment by the Kerala High Court, which held that a time-barred debt is not legally recoverable under section 138 of the Act. This interpretation was further confirmed by the Supreme Court, leading the court to conclude that the dishonored cheque was issued to discharge a time-barred debt, not a legally recoverable one.

Issue 4: Affidavit evidence and its admissibility in court
There was a debate regarding the admissibility of affidavit evidence in the case. The counsel for the complainant argued against the trial judge's consideration of affidavit evidence provided by the accused, citing a judgment by the Supreme Court. However, the court ultimately decided that the judgment of acquittal could be sustained without considering the affidavit evidence of the accused, thereby dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal based on the analysis of the issues surrounding the dishonor of the cheque, the proof of legally recoverable debt, the interpretation of time-barred debt, and the admissibility of affidavit evidence in the case. The judgment highlighted the legal requirements and interpretations under the Negotiable Instruments Act, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.