Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Mr. S.C. Laddha i/b Mr. Amit Chag, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Santosh Kyadiguppi, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Ms. A.A. Mane, A.P.P.

Key Points: - The judgment discusses that replacement of cheques by post-dated cheques may be for assurance of debt rather than presentation, distinguishing general liability to pay from liability under Section 138 [6000065260003][6000065260034] - It analyzes running account vs. bill-to-bill payments and the impact on proving a legally dischargeable liability under Section 138 [6000065260005][6000065260011] - It addresses the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 and the need for the accused to rebut it with probable defenses, especially in the context of accommodation cheques [6000065260030][6000065260032] - It notes that accommodation cheques can be used to postpone payment and still be within the ambit of Section 138 if properly supported by evidence, and that the replacement of cheques may reflect an adjustment rather than a straightforward discharge of debt [6000065260031][6000065260023] - It concludes with the appellate dismissal of appeals and the absence of illegality in the magistrates’ judgments, reinforcing that general civil liability is not a substitute for Section 138 liability when applicable [6000065260037]

What is the liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when cheques are issued as accommodation or for securing debt rather than for discharge of a legally enforceable debt?

What is the effect of running accounts vs. bill-to-bill payments on the liability under Section 138 when cheques are dishonoured?

What are the circumstances under which the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted in cases involving accommodation cheques and running accounts?