Home Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 Important Case Laws on Dishonour of Cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Existence of legally recoverable debt or liability - Is matter of presumption u/s 139.
When no subsisting debt or other liability is found to have been established which the accused was legally bound discharge or was legally enforceable debt or other liability not it is proved that the cheque was issued with a view to such debt/liability. The accused thus, is entitled for acquittal solely on this ground.
The complainant not sure as to who wrote cheque nor aware as to when and where existing transaction took place for which cheque was issued by the accused - Conviction of accused is not proper.
The Hon'ble Court had upheld the view taken by the learned lower Appellate Court.
It is only after satisfying that the complainant has proved existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, the Courts could have proceeded to draw presumption under Section 139 of the N. I. Act and thereafter find out as to whether or not the accused has rebutted the said presumption.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 139 - Dishonour of Cheque - Appeal against acquittal - Cheque as well as signature on it not disputed by accused - Presumption under S.139 would be attracted - Story brought by accused that cheque was given to complainant long back in 1999 as a security to a loan; the loan was repaid but complainant did not return security cheque - Is unworthy of credit, apart from being unsupported by any evidence - Mere printed date on cheque by itself cannot be conclusive of fact that cheque was issued in 1999.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Accused not leading any evidence to substantiate the plea that the cheques duly signed and given to his son were lost - The statutory presumption works in favour of the complainant.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 135 - Dishonour of cheque - Plea as to loss of signed cheque in Bus - No complaint lodged with Police - Accused failed to produce acceptable rebuttal evidence as to how the complainant came in possession of cheques - Conviction and sentence held proper.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 118 - Dishonour of cheque - Revision against conviction - Accused pleading that, cheques in question were stolen - That there was no necessity for him to borrow money from complainant - But under law there is a presumption in favour of holder of cheque that he holds it for consideration - Accused failing to rebut such presumption - Conviction upheld. However, amount of fine reduced.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 139 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Cheque issued towards repayment of hand loan returned unpaid - Change of date of cheque amounts to material alteration and it cannot be said that it is formal - When alteration could be seen from naked eyes there is no necessity of any expert opinion - When allegation itself is that cheque was given as security then it is to be held that cheque was not towards repayment of debt or liability - Defense put forth by accused is probable and it is substantiated on the basis of material on record - No grounds to warrant interference in order of acquittal - Appeal dismissed.
The cheques in question were issued as a security and not for the purpose of repayment of legally recoverable debt, and therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - 138 - Offence under - Judgment of acquittal - Appealed against - Absence of statement in the complaint as to when the amount was actually given to the accused - Absence of material particulars of the transaction in the complaint - Except signature all other entries are in different handwriting, different ink and undoubtedly made at different time - Mentioning of merely the date of issue of cheque without any material particulars - Held, Judgment of acquittal is justified.
Mere presentation of cheque would not amount to acceptance of debt or liability on part of accused.