Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and case of Stolen Cheque in case of cheque dishonour

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and case of Stolen Cheque in case of cheque dishonour

S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - "Stolen Cheques" - Closed Bank Accounts - Defences of Accused - Scope of Interference in Order of Acquittal - C [complainant] alleged dishonour of cheque of Rs. 4,95,000/- given towards the discharge of the liability - C alleged that accused "A" had taken loan from "C" from time to time for their business needs in the year 1992 and 1993 - C argued that the cheque on presentation was dishonoured for the reasons ‘Account Closed’ and that "A" failed to pay the cheque amount despite issue of notice dated 6.6.1998 - Accused (A) argued that they had good family relations with C and that the latter used to borrow money from them due to his financial constraints. Sometime in July, 1993, A discovered that few of their cheques were missing and that though, they suspected the same to be stolen by C, but due to family relations, they did not enquire from C -  Fact was that C was not able to disclose the material particulars about the alleged loan of Rs. 2,45,000/- given to the respondents/accused - C could not give the date and the month when the said loan was extended to A - C also did not know if it was in the year 1991-1992 or 1992-1993 and as to how much was the amount paid by him during any of these periods - C categorically stated that he could not state specific amount, month or year of the amounts paid to the accused person - Held, it appears to be improbable that the complainant (petitioner) who had filed a complaint under Section 138, N.I.Act and was litigating for five years till 30.4.1998 would again accept a cheque from them on 3.4.1998 for a sum of Rs. 4,95,000/- - Held, when the relations were strange between the parties and the litigation between them was pending as on 3.4.1998, it just looks improbable that the complainant (petitioner) would agree to accept another cheque of huge amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- towards settlement of alleged loan of Rs. 2,45,000/-  - Held, that in view of the complainant’s own case, the defence of accused A that A had not issued the cheque in question to C, seems to be probable - It was also the defence of A that the account of which the cheque is purported to have been issued, had already been closed prior to 6.8.1993. There was evidence on record to show that the account in question had already been closed on the said date and the remaining cheques of the cheque book were surrendered to the bank on the same date  - Held, acquittal of accused is justified. - A K Ahuja v. Suresh Kumar Talwar [2012] GCtR 6476 (Delhi)