Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Landlord’s Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt Leads to Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment by the High Court of Delhi, the Court emphasized the crucial importance of establishing a “legally enforceable debt” in cases involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The headline quote from the Court’s observation on this matter is as follows:

“The complainant is duty-bound to show and establish the basic ingredients therein, without which, the very complaint is bound to crumble and fall as the very essence of such a complaint is lost.”

In this case, the petitioner, who was the complainant, sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the Trial Court. The respondent had been accused of dishonoring a cheque. However, the Court found that the complainant had failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt owed by the respondent. The Court also noted material contradictions in the complainant’s testimony and the lack of evidence regarding the breakup of the cheque amount.

The Court further stated that it was the complainant’s responsibility to provide clear evidence linking the cheque amount, the relationship with the respondent, and the surrounding circumstances to prove the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court ultimately upheld the acquittal, finding no new grounds for interference and deeming the Trial Court’s order as plausible.

This judgment serves as a reminder that in cheque bounce cases, complainants must meticulously establish the elements required by the law, including the existence of a legally enforceable debt, to successfully prosecute their case.

Date of Decision: January 05, 2024

BHAGWATI DEVI VS SH. BALRAJ SINGH CHOPRA

 

Latest Legal News