Prosecution

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 22 October 2011 This query is : Resolved
if cheque issued for time barred debt are bounced with stop payment.if no prosecution u/s 138 is possible then under what other section prosecution can be initiated?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

ajay sethi (Expert) 22 October 2011
please explain the facts of your case . the accused may have acknowlwdged his libaility then fresh period of limitation runs . without complete facts of the case it would not be prudent to give a opinion .

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 22 October 2011
accused did not give any acknowledgement but accepted debt verbally in front of common acquittance person.he paid interest at intervals but no receipt taken.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 22 October 2011
Issuance of cheque after expiry of period of loan itself is an acceptance of accused person of his lawful debt. If cheque was already with the complainant and he encashed it after period of limitation of recovery of loan then there is no legal liability of accused and in that case such no offence is made out by accused.

It seems in your case, accused provided his cheuqe after expiry of period of recovery so this is an acknowledgment of his lawful debts meant this is renewal and thus offence is made out.

Arun Kumar Bhagat (Expert) 22 October 2011
Probably this is the sixth or seven question by Anonymous. THIS IS A LOST CASE.

Shonee Kapoor (Expert) 23 October 2011
Agreed with experts.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

Shailesh Kr. Shah (Expert) 23 October 2011
I agree with view of Shri raj Kumar makkad.

Guest (Expert) 23 October 2011
i don't think so. if three years limitation period exists you can opt for recovery of money. But overall perspective I found that it is time barred one. no scope.

Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 23 October 2011
Several cases may be filed provided you give details of your case.

prabhakar singh (Expert) 24 October 2011
I disagree with every one who holds opinion that even cheque issued for a time barred debt shall attract provisions of 138 NI ACT.
THOSE WHO OPINE SO HAVE FAILED TO READ THE EXPLANATION ADDED IN 2002 WHICH READS
"Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability]."

prabhakar singh (Expert) 24 October 2011
HENCE unless THERE IS A PROMISE TO PAY AS CONTEMPLATED IN LAW AND LAID IN 25(3)OF CONTRACT ACT TOGATHER WITH THE CHEQUE ,SECTION 138 CAN NOT BE INVOKED IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION [SUPRA].

s.25(3)OF CONTRACT ACT reads as follows:
"(3) it is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith or by his agent generally or specially authorised in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits. In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract."ANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT MUST BE IN TERMS OF THIS SECTION.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now