TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the complainant in his evidence as P.W.1 clearly reveals that the complainant is doing money lending business without license in Telangana area. He did not file a single document to show that he was having a valid license to do money lending business. The Explanation to Section 138 of N.I.Act clearly states that the dishonoured cheque shall relate to a legally enforceable debt or liability. In the instant case, since the complainant had no valid money lending business, he cannot legally enforce such a debt of liability. Under these circumstances, the Court below rightly concluded that the complainant is not entitled to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and therefore, the accused is entitled for acqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leave and as such, the legal representatives of the appellant/complainant are brought on record as appellant Nos.2 to 5. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that the respondent No.1/accused borrowed an amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- from the complainant on 17.05.2002 promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed a promissory note. In spite of repeated demands, the accused failed to repay the said amount and issued a cheque for ₹ 1,25,000/- towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. When the said cheque was presented for payment, the same got dishonoured stating the reason as exceeds arrangement . There is a valid legal notice, dated 05.07.2003. In spite of the same, the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y enforceable debt as alleged by the appellant/complainant? 2. Whether Ex.P.1 cheque was issued by the respondent No.1/accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt? 3. Whether the judgment, dated 31.12.2007, passed in C.C.No.250 of 2003 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira, is liable to be set aside, consequently, whether the respondent No.1/accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act? POINTS:- 7. The case of the appellant/complainant, as averred in the subject private complaint, is that the accused borrowed an amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- from the complainant on 17.05.2002 and executed a promissory note. In spite of repeated demands, the accused did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince 7 to 8 years during chit transactions; the accused is one of the subscribers in Chit No.LTWA 22/11 and LTWA 22/12, during June, 2001 and the accused was the successful bidder for both the chits and prized amount was paid to the accused, who in turn, produced sureties. The case of the accused is that there is no legally enforceable debt as alleged and that the blank cheque was not given towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt, but for collateral purpose with regard to chit transaction and that the complainant, in order to gain wrongfully, concocted a story that the subject cheque was given towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. P.W.1 stated in his cross-examination that the accused came to his house, handed over the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legally enforceable debt to be discharged by the accused. 10. The Explanation to Section 138 of N.I.Act clearly states that the dishonoured cheque shall relate to a legally enforceable debt or liability. In the instant case, since the complainant had no valid money lending business, he cannot legally enforce such a debt of liability. Under these circumstances, the Court below rightly concluded that the complainant is not entitled to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The conclusions reached by the trial Court are based on evidence on record. There is nothing to take a different view. The accusations against the accused under Section 138 of N.I.Act ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|