Back
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
Aarikatla Srinivasa Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“Cr.P.C.”] seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 344 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Macherla, Guntur District.
2. The 2nd Respondent herein filed a private complaint against the Petitioner/Accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegations in the complaint, are as under:
(ii) On 07.05.2008 and 15.05.2008, the accused is said to have received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on both dates from the complainant agreeing to pay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. The said amount was paid by way of cheques through his account at HDFC Bank, Kukatpalli Branch, Hyderabad. Subsequent thereto, there were some transactions between the accused and the complainant. On 27.06.2012, the complainant found the total amount due by the accused was about Rs. 25,75,000/- and with a view to discharge the same, a cheque
Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, Section 139 of N.I. Act, includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability, which is a rebuttal one.
The nature of the debt must be proven during trial, and there is a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque.
A debtor's issuance of a cheque acknowledges a debt; questions of enforceability or time-bar must be determined through evidence, not prior to trial.
Dishonour of cheque – Cheque itself is a promise to pay even if debt is barred by time.
The legal enforceability of a debt, including whether it is time-barred, is a question of fact requiring trial evidence, and cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The legal point established is that the existence of a time-barred debt should be determined based on evidence during the trial, and the burden of proof lies with the accused to establish the non-exi....
The legal enforceability of debt, time-barred debt, and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act are disputed questions of fact, requiring evidence and trial to determine, and should not be de....
The issue of whether a cheque was issued for a time-barred debt is a matter for evidence and cannot be adjudicated before the court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
