Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
A. Bhoosanrao vs Purushothamdas Pantani And Anr. on 17 March, 1997
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the father of the petitioner took a loan of ` 1,25,000/- from the father of
the complainant. According to him, in the course of the said transaction,
the cheque in question might have been got issued as security for that
loan. According to him, the complainant-respondent thus, failed to prove
a legally enforceable debt and, therefore, on dishonour of the cheque,
the petitioner was not liable to be proceeded against for an offence under
section 138 of the Act. Hence, the judgments of the lower court are liable
to be set-aside. He has placed reliance on a decision of Hon`ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court in case A.Bhoosanrao Vs. Purushothamdas
Pantani and another 1998 Crl. Law Journal 906, where the claim of
the complainant that he had lent a huge amount to the accused by way of
cheque was denied by the accused and the complainant failed to prove
that he had sufficient capacity to lend that amount, that too by cheque
and, therefore, it was held that the accused was not liable to be
punished for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Act.
1