{"id":308042,"date":"2023-11-29T18:00:51","date_gmt":"2023-11-29T12:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=308042"},"modified":"2023-11-29T17:41:00","modified_gmt":"2023-11-29T12:11:00","slug":"calcutta-high-court-upholds-acquittal-under-section-138-of-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/29\/calcutta-high-court-upholds-acquittal-under-section-138-of-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta High Court upholds acquittal under Section 138 of NI Act on failure to prove existence of legally enforceable debt"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> In an appeal challenging the reversal and acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case under Section 138<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a> (NI Act), a single-judge bench comprising of Rai Chattopadhyay,* J.<\/span>, found no irregularity or illegality in the first appellate court’s judgment, upholding the acquittal on appellant’s failure to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt, independent of considerations related to a money lending business or license.<\/p>\n

Brief Facts<\/p>\n

The instant matter pertains to an appeal against a judgment dated September 28-09-2012, related to a case under Section 138<\/a> of the NI Act<\/a>, questioning the reversal and acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Alipore in criminal appeal.<\/p>\n

The complaint, registered in 2005, alleged that the appellant, a licensed money lender, advanced a loan of Rs. 3,30,000 to the respondents. A post-dated cheque was issued but dishonored, leading to legal proceedings. The Magistrate initially ruled in favor of the appellant, finding the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The first appellate Court, however, reversed the judgment, emphasising the appellant’s failure to produce a money lender’s license.<\/p>\n

Parties’ Contentions<\/p>\n

The appellant\/complainant contended that the first appellate Court erred in finding the appellant’s allegations affected by the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 (the Act). It was argued that the first appellate Court misdirected itself by requiring the appellant to produce a money lender’s certificate, asserting that such a document is irrelevant in a Section 138 case.<\/p>\n

The respondent asserted that the cheque, alleged to be dishonored, served as security rather than payment for a legally enforceable debt. The emphasis was placed on the non-supply\/irregular service of the statutory notice, claiming that the absence of proper notice renders the proceedings under Section 138 illegal and not maintainable.<\/p>\n

Law Point<\/p>\n