Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 1131 - HC - Indian LawsGuilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - proof of legally enforceable debt or liability - Held that:- There is a vast difference between proof of execution of the promissory note and the proof of the signature of the executant in the document. Law requires not the proof of signature alone, but the proof of execution of the document. Here in this case, though the signatures have been admitted by the accused, that will not automatically go to prove the execution of the promissory note. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is only liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if once the execution of the promissory note is not proved and the payment of loan is not proved, then the entire case of the complainant should collapse. I am in full agreement with the same. Mere issuance of the cheque without there being any legally enforceable debt or liability would not make out any offence under Section 138 of the Act, even though the cheque is dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. In this case, the complainant has failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued as against any legally enforceable debt. In this case, assuming that the defence taken by the accused, on the face of the transaction between Rajaraman and the accused, may not be true, even then the complainant has to fail in the case, because he has failed to prove the legally enforceable debt on the part of the accused. In view of the same, inclined to allow this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court.Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted.
|