A.V. MURTHY

B.S. NAGABASAVANNA

FEBRUARY 8, 2002

[R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:

Section 138 and explanation thereto-Dishonour of cheque drawn in C respect of debt or liability for amount advanced earlier-Proceedings under the Section-Magistrate issued summons to the accused-Accused filed revision petition alleging that complaint was not maintainable-Sessions Court and High Court held there was no legally enforceable debt or liability a11d thus quashed the proceedings-On appeal, held, debt or liability not barred from D being enforced under law-At the stage of issue of summons, it is incorrect to hold that such debt or liability not legally enforceable--Matter remanded to the Magistrate.

Appellant and his friends advanced certain amount to respondent. Four years later, respondent issued a cheque in favour or appellant which was E dishonoured. Appellant then filed a complaint under Section 138 or the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Magistrate issued summons to the respondent. Thereafter, respondent filed Criminal Revision alleging that the complaint was not maintainable as the amount was advanced four years prior to the date of issue or cheque and in view of the explanation to Section 138 F there was no legally enforceable debt or liability against respondent. Sessions Judge allowed the Revision Petition in view of bar of limitation and quashed the complaint proceedings under Section 138. High Court upheld the Order.

Hence the present appeal.

Appellant contended that Sessions Judge was incorrect to hold that there G was no legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the respondent.

Further more, the respondent had acknowledged the liability in his balance sheet.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1. Courts below were in error in quashing the complaint A proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as this is not a case where the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability which Wll3 completely barred from being enforced under law. Further at the stage of issue of summons it was clearly illegal and erroneous to say that the cheque drawn by the respondent in respect of debt or liability was not legally B enforeCllble. (909-D-E)

1.2. As regards the contention that the respondent had acknowledged

.,. the liobility in his bolance-sheet no final opinion is expressed as the matter is remanded to the Mllgiltrote. [902-C-D)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. C 206 of 2002.

From the Judsment and Order dated 24.11.2000 of the Kamataka High Court ill Crl. R.P. No. 910 of 2000.

Jagdeep Dhankar, Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Devashish D Bharuka and Lalita Kaushik for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. The appellant herein tiled a complaint before the Magistrate alleging that the respondent herein had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 [for short, "the Act"]. The appellant alleged that he and his two friends

had advanced a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs to the respondent about four years back F to enable him to start a petrol pump and that the respondent did not pay back the said amount despite repeated demands and finally at the request of the appellant, on 30.3.1998 the respondent issued a cheque in favour of the appellant. The appellant presented the cheque for payment, but the cheque was dishonoured by the bank for the reason "Account closed". Thereafter, G the appellant issued a statutory demand notice and as the respondent failed to pay the amount, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate by the appellant.

In the complaint, it was alleged that the appellant and his two friends advanced the said sum of Rs. 7 .5 lakhs to the respondent about four years prior to the date of issue of the cheque by the respondent. The learned Magistrate issued summons to the respondent. The respondent filed a Criminal Revision before H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2002) 1 S.C.R.

A the llnd Addi. Sessions Judge, Mysore, alleging that the complaint was not maintainable as the amount advanced by the appellant to him was about four years prior to the date of issue of the cheque, and in view of the 'Explanation' appended to Section 138 of the Act, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability as against the respondent. The Addi. Sessions Judge accepted this plea and held that even on the basis of the averments in the complaint and B the sworn statement of the complainant, the alleged borrowing was four years prior to the issuance of the cheque and hence that debt was not legally enforceable in view of the bar of limitation and, therefore, the Magistrate was in error in taking cognizance of the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Act. As a result, the Addi. Sessions Judge quashed the entire proceedings and C aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Kamataka but the learned Single Judge upheld the view of the Addi.

Sessions Judge. The appeal has now come up before us.

We heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel contended that it was incorrect on the part of the Sessions Judge to hold that there was D no legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the respondent. He also contended that when a cheque is issued, under Section 118 of the Act, it has to be presumed that it was drawn for consideration. It was further contended that even though the appellant and his friends advanced the loan about four years back, the respondent had acknowledged this liability in his balance E sheet and that even for the purpose of a civil suit, such debt or liability is not barred by limitation.

The respondent refused to accept notice and we did not have the advantage of hearing him. The respondent seems to have contended that as the loan was advanced four years prior to the issuance of the cheque, the debt F or the liability for which the cheque was drawn by him had ceased to be legally enforceable and, therefore, no complaint could have been filed by the complainant under Section .138 of the Act.

As the complaint has been rejected at the threshold, we do not propose G to express any opinion on this question as the matter is yet to be agitated by the parties. But, we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Single Judge of the High Court were clearly in error in quashing the complaint proceedings. Under Section 118 of the Act, there is a presumption that until the contrary is proved, every negotiable instrument was drawn for consideration. Even under Section 139 of the Act, it is specifically stated that H it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a

cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for A discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. It is also pertinent to note that under sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits, is a valid contract. Moreover, B in the instant, the appellant has submitted before us that the respondent, in his balance sheet prepared for every year sub&equent to the loan advanced by the appellant, had shown the amount as deposits from friends. A copy of the

"I' balance sheet as on 31st March 1997 is also produced before us. If the amount borrowed by the respondent is shown in the balance sheet, it may C amount to acknowledgement and the creditor might have a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the acknowledgement was made. However,

...

we do not express any final opinion on all these aspects, as these are matters to be agitated before the Magistrate by way of defence of the respondent.

This is not a case where the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or D liability, which was completely barred from being enforced under law. If for example, the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability payable under a wagering contract, it could have been said that that debt or liability is not legally enforceable as it is a claim, which is prohibited under law. This case is not a case of that type. But we are certain that at this stage of the proceedings, E to say that the cheque drawn by the respondent was in respect of a debt or liability, which was not legally enforceable, was clearly illegal and erroneous.

Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, allow this appeal and remand the matter to the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. We make it clear that F whatever has been stated by us regarding enforceability of the debt or liability is for the purpose of these prcceedings and the respondent would be at liberty to set up all legally available defences.

There will be no order as to costs.

N.J.

Appeal allowed.