9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legally enforceable debt u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Limitation period for debt acknowledgment. 3. Validity of cheques issued for time-barred debts. Summary: Issue 1: Legally enforceable debt u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 The trial Court found both the accused guilty u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the first accused and six months simple imprisonment on the second accused, along with compensation equivalent to the cheque amounts. The first appellate Court overturned this decision, concluding that the cheques were issued for time-barred debts, thus not constituting legally enforceable debts. Issue 2: Limitation period for debt acknowledgment The complainants argued that the loans were advanced in 1990, with amounts calculated and pro-notes executed on 10.03.1995. However, no pro-notes were produced as evidence. The complainants also failed to prove that the accused paid interest, which could have extended the limitation period. The cheques were issued in 1997, well beyond the limitation period without valid acknowledgment of debt, making the debts time-barred. Issue 3: Validity of cheques issued for time-barred debts The Court emphasized that u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cheque must be issued for a legally enforceable debt. Since the debts were time-barred and no valid acknowledgment was established, the cheques did not meet this criterion. The first appellate Court's reliance on precedents from Andhra Pradesh and Kerala High Courts, which held that time-barred debts do not constitute legally enforceable debts, was upheld. Conclusion: The High Court confirmed the first appellate Court's judgments, dismissing the criminal appeals and affirming that the cheques were issued for time-barred debts, thus not constituting legally enforceable debts u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
|
