9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act'). 2. Heard the leaned counsel for the appellant/complainant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2/State and perused the record. 3. It is evident from the record that that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant/complainant died and the Legal representatives of the appellant/complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.18 of 2010 seeking leave of this Court to continue this appeal. Vide order, dated 05.02.2010, this Court granted 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 resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case reveal that Ex.P.1 cheque as not issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt. The Court below, after analyzing the entire evidence on record and referring to various precedents, rightly acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. There are no circumstances to interfere with the same and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 6. In view of the above submissions, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows: 1. Whether there is legally 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Memo issued by SBH, Wyra Branch, dated 03.07.2003. Ex.P.5 is the office copy of Legal Notice, dated 05.07.2003. Ex.P.6 is the postal acknowledgement and Ex.P.7 is the certified copy Promissory note, dated 17.05.2002. 9. P.W.1 deposed in his cross-examination that he was doing chit fund business and also money lending business since 7 to 8 years in the name and style of 'Mithra Employees Finance' and 'Wyra Chit Fund and Finance (Pvt) Limited, Wyra; he had acquaintance with the accused since 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further, he admitted in his evidence that he filed 20 suits for recovery of money and 12 cases for dishonour of cheques before various Courts. In the given circumstances, the Court below, relying on Krishnam Raju Finance, Hyderabad Vs. Abida Sultana and another {2004 Volume I ALD (Crl) 546} wherein it was held that since the appellant therein had no money lending business license, it cannot be said that there was a legally enforceable liability, rightly concluded that there is no 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 mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
