Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7) The appellants/accused further submits that trial court has failed to consider the grounds, which were brought on record that Time Barred Debt. The alleged loan had become time barred, when the disputed cheque was presented. A) According to the complainant the alleged loan was given on 19/10/2013 and the cheque in question is Dated 03/04/2017 and the cheque was dishonoured on 03/05/2017 thus the cheque has been presented to the bank after the lapse of Judgment Crl.A.No.25224/2018 three years and for this transaction the Indian Limitation Act applies. B) The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the Judgment reported in 2001 CRL.L J 24 clearly held that, Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138-Dishonour of cheque- cheque in question was issued in discharge of time barred debt-No valid acknowledgement of debt before expiry of three years from date of loan-Debt not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of cheque accused cannot be convicted for dishonor of cheque. C) At para No.7 in the said judgment it has been held that, explanation-For the purpose of this section-debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. D) Thus section 138 is attracted only if the cheque is issued for the discharge of - a legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, admittedly the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a time barred debt. It cannot be said that a time barred debt is a legally enforceable debt. E) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the Judgment of Crl.A No.545/20:10, has Judgment Crl.A.No.25224/2018 followed the aforesaid judgment and also the Hon'ble Supreme court had accepted the judgment of the Kerala High Court. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the recent judgment i.e., in Crl.A No.302/2010, had also agreed the proposition of Law laid down by Kerala High court.

9) The appellant/accused further submits that on the perusal of the section 23 of Indian Contract Act, it can be clearly seen that Section 23 defines as What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not- The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless- It is forbidden by law, or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law. B) Now what as to be seen is whether the Section 23 of Indian Contract Act will be applicable to Negotiable Instruments Act- the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.1387/2011 in the order Judgment Crl.A.No.25224/2018 dated: 06/07/2018 has clearly laid down the precedent that Indian Contract Act is applicable to Negotiable Instruments Act as Para No.21 it has been held that "as could be seen from the rulings citied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the provision of Section 23 of Indian Contract act, it is crystal clear that if on basis of void contract and particularly if the consideration is illegal, and consideration is for immoral or illegal purposes or which is against the public policy, then the whole transaction becomes void, the consideration paid in such contract becomes an illegal consideration and when it is said it is legal or unlawful consideration, it can be at any stretch of imagination called as legally recoverable debt". C) Thus when the alleged transaction as contented by the complainant is considered as illegal as per Section 73 of Companies Act, the said Debt or liability cannot be enforced as it will not come under the scope of Section 138 of NI Act. Explanation- For the Judgment Crl.A.No.25224/2018 purposes of this Section, "debt or 3 there liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

18) The Magistrate Court relying on the said decision given opinion that when the promise created by a cheque issued for discharge of time barred debt or liability is certainly amounts to legally enforceable debt.

19) In this appeal the respondent counsel while arguing upon the decision reported in (2010)11 Supreme Court Judgment Crl.A.No.25224/2018 Cases 441 [Rangappa V/s. Sri Mohan] Criminal Appeal No.1020 of 2010 dated 07/05/2010 wherein it is held:-

E. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138 and 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction confirmed - Appellant accused, drawer of cheque in question, neither raising a probable defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - High Court reversing his acquittal - Sustainability - Held, complaint discloses primafacie existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - Since appellant admitted that signature on the cheque was his, statutory presumption under s.