9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against acquittal in a cheque bounce case due to limitation period.
Summary: 1. The appeal was against the acquittal of the accused in a case where she failed to repay a loan and issued a dishonored cheque. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 95,000 but did not repay despite repeated requests. 2. The accused claimed that the complainant obtained the cheque fraudulently and denied issuing it. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the appeal by the complainant. 3. The complainant presented evidence, including the dishonored cheque, and the accused denied the allegations. The trial court acquitted the accused based on the limitation period for debt recovery. 4. The appellant argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint based on limitation. The court noted that the debt was time-barred as the cheque was issued after more than three years from the loan date. 5. The court emphasized the importance of acknowledgment of debt within the limitation period for legal enforceability. The dishonored cheque was not considered a valid acknowledgment under the law. 6. Citing legal precedents, the court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the trial court's decision. Judgment: Dismissed the appeal against the acquittal in the cheque bounce case due to the debt being time-barred under the limitation period, as the dishonored cheque did not constitute a valid acknowledgment of the debt.
|
