9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Accused filed discharge petitions under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, claiming cheques were issued as security and not for discharge of debt. The main issue is whether the accused is liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring cheques issued towards balance sale consideration before completion of sale transaction. Analysis: The accused filed discharge petitions under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that the cheques were issued only as security until the sale transaction was completed, and therefore, he was not liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court noted that the complaints alleged the cheques were issued towards the balance of sale consideration, and possession of the property was handed over to the accused on the date of the sale agreement itself. The court referred to the definition of "sale" in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing that the transaction is completed when the seller places the buyer in possession of the property. The court found that the cheques were not issued merely as security, as claimed by the accused, but towards a debt or liability, as per the complainants' allegations. The court rejected the accused's reliance on previous judgments and legal provisions to support his argument. The court highlighted that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act presumes that the complainant received the cheques for the discharge of a debt or liability unless proven otherwise. The court distinguished a previous case cited by the accused, where the circumstances were different, and found that in the present case, specific allegations were made regarding the purpose of issuing the cheques towards the sale consideration of the property. The court emphasized that the accused's belated filing of discharge petitions under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, after previous petitions for quashing were dismissed, was not maintainable. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously and dismissed the revisions filed by the accused. The accused's argument that the cheques were issued as security and not for discharge of debt was deemed invalid, leading to the dismissal of the petitions and the directive for the trial court to continue the trial promptly.
|
