- The Supreme Court decided the question of whether the cheque issued for a time-barred debt or not be decided under Section 482 CrPC.
- The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and J. B. Pardiwala held that the question that prevailed was a matter of evidence.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the debt was time-barred on the date when the accused was summoned.
- The High Court noticed that there was a lack of averment in the complaint concerning acknowledgment of the debt by the accused within the limitation period of 3years to recover the debt.
- The Supreme Court, in appeal, observed that the loan was advanced during the year 2011 but the cheque issued for the discharge of debt by the accused was in the year 2018 and the complaint raised under the Negotiable Instruments Act was lodged during the year 2019.
- It further observed that the High Court has considered the date of the transaction of the loan precisely. If a cheque was issued on 01.11.2018 for discharging a debt incurred in 2011, then it prima facie becomes acknowledgment of debt.
- The apex court suggested that this must be reconsidered by the High Court in true perspective.
- The Court dissented the view of acknowledgment of debt at the instance of the accused to be within 3 years from the date of transaction and that there shall be no averment to complain in that regard.
- The Supreme Court stated that they failed to understand and comprehend the reasoning given by the High Court because the 5lakh rupees loan advanced by the complainant to the accused was for 7 years and it prima facie appears that liability of repayment of the loan is to be discharged within 7 years.
- If this was the case, then on what grounds were the first three years considered by High Court in deciding the limitation period in question.
- It was said that at the time the cheque was issued the debt was barred by limitation as no acknowledgment was procured before the expiry of three years from the date of the loan is what the High Court must have presumed in deciding the case.
- The reasonability here is to discharge liability within seven years.
- The apex court, prima facie is of the view that the limitation period shall start reckoning from the expiry of the seven years.
- The court noted that the complainant was not heard when the Section 482 CrPC petition was disposed off by High Court. The appeal was thus allowed for fresh consideration.
- The Supreme Court held that once a cheque is issued and after getting dishonored if it receives a statutory notice then the accused is to dislodge the legal presumption available under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- The issue of whether the cheque in question had been issued for time-bared debt or not is itself a prima facie matter of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC.
"Loved reading this piece by Arundhathi?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
