2017 (6) TMI 1127 - HC - Indian Laws

Offence punishable under Section 138 - Held that - The cheque was issued by the accused which was drawn on the account which was not belonging to the accused but someone else. It appears that the said account was of the father of the accused. In view thereof, it can safely be said that the ingredients of Section 138 are not attracted. Paragraph 2 of the complaint reveals that the cheque was issued from the account of the accused. However, the account number is not mentioned. In paragraph 3 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the cheque was issued for crediting the same in the account of father of the accused. The said fact makes amply clear that it does not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I.Act. On careful scrutiny of the case, it appears that the loan transaction was with the father of the accused and the accused had handed over the cheque which was to be credited in the account of his father, to repay the outstanding amount due on his father and the said cheque was utilised by the bank authority for securing the dues of the accused from his account i.e. Account No. 0000226. Thus, the complainant has utterly failed to prove that the cheque was drawn on the account of the accused. The ingredients of section 138 of the N.I. Act are not proved by the complainant. The accused is therefore entitled for acquittal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Acquittal of accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Delay in lodging the complaint.
3. Validity of the cheque issued by the accused.
4. Account discrepancy in relation to the cheque.
5. Legal principles governing Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
6. Applicability of previous legal judgments.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves the appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant contended that the accused's liability was established as per procedural requirements of Section 138 of the Act.

2. The delay in lodging the complaint was a crucial issue. The complainant argued that the delay was condoned due to the accused's assurance of payment. However, the court found the delay unexplained and not satisfactorily proved, as required under the Act. The court emphasized the importance of timely complaint filing as per the statutory provisions.

3. The validity of the cheque issued by the accused was questioned. The court analyzed the discrepancies in the account details and the cheque itself. It was noted that the cheque was allegedly drawn on an account not belonging to the accused, but to his father. This raised doubts about the applicability of Section 138 of the Act to the accused.

4. There was a significant account discrepancy in relation to the cheque. The complainant failed to prove that the cheque was drawn on the accused's account. The court found that the transaction was primarily with the accused's father, and the cheque was intended for his father's account. This discrepancy weakened the complainant's case under Section 138.

5. The judgment extensively discussed the legal principles governing Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The court highlighted the essential ingredients required to establish the offence under this section, emphasizing the importance of the cheque being drawn on the drawer's own account, which was not satisfactorily proven in this case.

6. The court referred to previous legal judgments to support its decision. It cited a case where a complaint was not maintainable under Section 138 as the dishonored cheque was issued from an account not maintained by the accused. Similarly, in the present case, the court concluded that the accused could not be held liable under Section 138 due to the account discrepancies.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as the court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's judgment. The accused was acquitted based on the failure of the complainant to establish the essential elements required under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.