Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act defines the offence of cheque dishonour. There are many necessary ingredients of this offence (read my article for more details on this), which must be satisfied for conviction for this offence. If any of the necessary ingredients is not satisfied, then the accused cannot be convicted and it may lead to his acquittal.
Therefore, mere acquittal of the accused in a Section 138 N.I. Act does not mean that the civil liability of the drawer of the cheque has been satisfied or that such liability did not exist in the first place. In view of this, generally speaking, it may be possible to successfully pursue a summary suit (under the Civil Procedure Code) for recovery of the amount due from the drawer of the cheque even after a cheque bounce case under Section 138 has ended in acquittal.
However, in one particular situation, if the acquittal of the accused in Section 138 case was on the ground that there was no debt or liability of the drawer of the cheque, then it may create difficulty in the summary suit for recovery of money because such a finding may strike at the root of the summary suit. Naturally, if is proved on the basis of evidence that there was no debt or liability, then recovery of money in summary suit may not succeed.
But, if the acquittal in Section 138 case is on other grounds, or on the benefit of doubt (even on the question of debt or liability), then it may still be possible to pursue the summary suit for recovery of money, though the result would depend on the facts of each individual case.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
