N I ACT.
pushpakrishna
(Querist) 03 February 2017
This query is : Resolved
dear sir
there is no scrap of paper regarding showing any legally enforciable debt but cheque is got from the house of the accused due to accquintenc and filed a case u/s 138 of ni act.
kindly clearify the legally enforciable debt.
only cheque returned from the bank due to insuficent of funds is enough for filing the case u/s138of ni act.
now a days most of the cases like this filing false cases basing on the cheques only.
kindly advice on this.
thanq in advance dear experts.
Rudrawar Narayanreddy
(Expert) 03 February 2017
once cheque is issued presumption raised. The burden is on the person who issued cheque to prove that there is no legally encforceable debt. The provision of 138 is introduced in order to bring reliability about cheque as crore together business is done on belief.
So you have to prove that the cheque is without legally enforceable debt.
Ms.Usha Kapoor
(Expert) 04 February 2017
.Agree with Mr.Narayan Reddy.
P. Venu
(Expert) 04 February 2017
Please furnish the material fats and the complete history of transaction.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 04 February 2017
Academic query.
State material facts of the problem if any.
How are you concerned / related with the query?
Looks like examination question.
rajeev sharma
(Expert) 06 February 2017
Firstly i disagree with Mr Goyal that it is an academic query. It is a practical problem we out of love or friendship some time lends without having any thing in writing .
I do agree with other experts. Whenever a cheque is given law presumes that it is given to satisfy a liability and onus of proving that it was not so is on the defendant. You should proceed with filing a complaint before court. If the acquaintance who brought the cheque is ready to testify before the court that the cheque was given to satisfy liability, is better
P. Venu
(Expert) 06 February 2017
Majority of the cases under NI 138 are sham. Invariably the story of the complainant is that he had had advanced an amount to the respondent and the latter had given him a post dated signed (in presence of the complainant!) cheque for the amount so advanced. However, when the complainant presented the cheque to the Bank, the same was returned because of insufficiency of funds.
However, every lawyer worth his profession knows the truth is totally different. A needy person approaches the money lender who advances the sum required against an interest which could be as high as 10% per month. The money lender get from the hapless borrower one or more blank undated signed cheque. The borrower, in course of time pays the borrowed amount as well the interest. However, a at later date, the money lender invokes NI 138 in an attempt to get some more money.
This is nothing but an abuse of law and its procedure. It is high time that the lawyers of our country discover the professionals in them to dissociate themselves from this thuggery.
pushpakrishna
(Querist) 06 February 2017
Thanq very much dear experts for your valuable replies.
