9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id presumption is rebuttable and the same can be rebutted by the petitioner by leading evidence. At this stage, without there being any evidence on record, it cannot be held that the cheque drawn by the petitioner was in respect of a debt or liability which was not legally enforceable. The plea raised by the petitioner that the cheque in question was issued on account of a time barred debt can be gone into by the Trial Court after the parties lead their evidence with regard to their respective pleas. However, at this stage, it would not be just and expedient to quash the criminal proceedings at the very threshold by presuming that the cheque in question had been issued qua a time barred debt. No ground for interference by this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y underlying the doctrine of acknowledgment. The true principle underlying an acknowledgment is that it merely renews the liability and gives the creditor or claimant a fresh period of limitation according to the nature of the liability which exists at the date of the acknowledgment. An acknowledgment cannot be regarded as evidentiary of the debt but an acknowledgment that a person owes money to another, a specified person is good evidence of his owing money to another. The dishonoured cheque Ex. P1 cannot be treated as acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, since the acknowledgment should be before the period of limitation is over and that it should be in writing. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant has been able to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paid after three years of the friendly loan having became time barred. Similarly, the cheques issued in lieu of the original cheque i.e a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- bearing No. 817773 dated 30-08-2006 and another cheque bearing No. 350562 dated 05-05-2007. 7. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of provisions of Section 138 of the N.I Act and if the same read along with explanation, it is apparent that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act as per the scheme of the Act can be fastened on an accused only if he commits a default in repayment of the dishonoured cheque which was issued in discharge of a legally recoverable debt. x x x x x 12. A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued by him. The fact that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner leads to a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the said presumption is rebuttable and the same can be rebutted by the petitioner by leading evidence. At this stage, without there being any evidence on record, it cannot be held that the cheque drawn by the petitioner was in respect of a debt or liability which was not legally enforceable. The plea raised by the petitioner that the cheque in question was issued on account of a time barred debt can be gone into by the Trial Court after the parties lead their evidence with regard to their respective pleas. However, at this stage, it would not be just and expedient to quash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
