The main legal point established is that for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is essential to establish that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability.

Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Summary: The court dismissed the complaints filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as it was not established that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the conditions for filing a complaint under Section 138 and the requirement of establishing the cause of action.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonouring of a cheque. The trial court acquitted the respondent, leading to the present application for leave to appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent, but as there were no pleadings that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or other liability, the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.
Issues: The issues involved were the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court and the petitioner's contention that the cheque was signed by the respondent and handed over to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, highlighting the conditions for filing a complaint under Section 138 and the requirement of establishing the cause of action.
Final Decision: The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed, and the applications for condonation of delay were disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - These applications are filed seeking leave to Appeal against the judgment dated 10.8.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal dismissing the complaints filed by the petitioner. The applications are accompanied by the applications for condoning the delay of 72 days.

2. As the facts, issue involved are similar and parties are same, these two petitions are being decided by common order.

3. However, facts have been taken from CRM-A-82-MA of 2017.

4. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') on dishonouring of cheque bearing No. 026937 dated 23.4.2012 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Karnal. The cheque was returned with the remarks "insufficient funds". After issuing notice, the complaint was filed.

5. The trial court vide judgment dated 10.8.2016 acquitted the respondent, hence the present application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent, as there was no dispute that the cheque was signed by the respondent and he had handed over the cheque to the petitioner.

7. The trial court after appreciating the facts and evidence adduced concluded that there were no pleadings in the complaint and legal notice that the cheque was given to the petitioner for discharge of "debt or other liability".

8. During cross-examination the petitioner tried to set up a case that friendly loan was advanced and the cheque was issued for repayment of the loan. Apart from making a bald statement in cross-examination, nothing was produced to substantiate it, resultantly the respondent was acquitted.

9. In Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State o Maharashtra and another, Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009, decided on 1.8.2014 the Supreme Court held as under:

"31. To sum up:

(i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank.

(ii) Cognizance of any such offence is however forbidden under Section 142 of the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder of the cheque in due course within a period of one month from the date the cause of action accrues to such payee or holder under clause (c) of proviso to Section 138.

(iii) The cause of action to file a complaint accrues to a complainant/payee/holder of a cheque in due course if

(a) the dishonoured cheque is presented to the drawee bank within a period of six months from the date of its issue.

(b) If the complainant has demanded payment of cheque amount within thirty days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque and

(iv) The facts constituting cause of action do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

(v) The proviso to Section 138 simply postpones/defers institution of criminal proceedings and taking of cognizance by the Court till such time cause of action in terms of clause (c) of proviso accrues to the complainant.

(vi) Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant, the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case will be determined by reference to the place where the cheque is dishonoured.

(vii) The general rule stipulated under Section 177 of Cr.P.C applies to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the Court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable under Section 138 is committed along with other offences in a single transaction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document