9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against acquittal based on validity of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Analysis: 1. The appellant filed a criminal appeal challenging the orders of acquittal passed by the Magistrate. The Magistrate acquitted the respondent as the complainant failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The complainant, represented by the Managing Partner, filed the complaint stating that the respondent owed an amount for the supply of cement. The respondent issued a cheque which was later returned due to insufficient funds. The respondent claimed the cheque was issued for security purposes and not to discharge any debt. Witnesses were examined, and evidence was presented regarding the issuance and purpose of the cheque. The appellant argued that under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the holder of a blank cheque can fill in any date and amount. However, the court held that presenting a time-barred cheque for encashment nearly after four years could lead to anomalous situations and dismissed the appeal. 2. The appellant's counsel requested that the judgment should not affect the client's ability to enforce civil liability against the respondent. The court clarified that the judgment was limited to the facts of the case and would not prevent the appellant from pursuing civil remedies separately. Overall, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that presenting time-barred cheques for encashment after a significant period could create opportunities for misuse and should not be allowed. The judgment's scope was restricted to the specific case, ensuring that it did not impact any civil actions the appellant may take against the respondent.
|
