9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Dispute regarding liability for a dishonored cheque issued for debt repayment. 3. Interpretation of the role and liability of a mandate holder in cheque transactions. 4. Failure to prove signature on the disputed cheque and liability of the accused. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal seeking conviction against the respondent for dishonoring a cheque issued to discharge a debt. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent due to the failure to prove the issuance of the cheque for the alleged liability. 2. The appellant claimed that the respondent, along with another, borrowed a sum and issued a cheque for repayment. The respondent denied liability and issuance of the cheque, leading to the Trial Court's acquittal based on insufficient evidence. 3. The High Court analyzed the liability under Section 138 of the Act, emphasizing that the person liable must be the drawer of the cheque. In this case, the cheque was drawn by a company, and the accused was a mandate holder, not personally responsible for the debt. 4. The Court highlighted that the mandate holder's role is limited to acting on behalf of the account holder. As per Section 135 of the Act, the mandate holder is not the drawer in the true sense for liability under Section 138. Therefore, the case should have been filed against the account holder, not the mandate holder. 5. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court reiterated that a mandate giver cannot escape liability under the Act if the cheque was issued to discharge a liability. In this case, the failure to include the account holder as an accused led to the appeal's dismissal. 6. The Trial Court's finding on the signature mismatch was deemed acceptable, considering the accused's name change. However, the Court disagreed with the Trial Court's conclusion on proving the cheque issuance, emphasizing the relationship between the accused and the company for which the cheque was drawn. 7. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal, as the case was not maintainable against the mandate holder and failed to establish liability on the proper account holder. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's acquittal, emphasizing the legal distinctions regarding liability in dishonored cheque cases and the specific roles of mandate holders in such transactions.
|
