“The cheque in question was not drawn or signed by my client. Section 138 applies only to the dra…

“The cheque in question was not drawn or signed by my client. Section 138 applies only to the drawer. Without being the drawer, liability cannot be extended.”

Authority: SMS Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla (2005) 8 SCC 89.

2. Loan, if any, was with the Company

“The complainant herself admitted in cross-examination that the alleged transaction was with Accused No.1 Company. My client was only an employee, not a beneficiary. Even assuming liability, it is of the company and its signatory, not of this Appellant.”

Authority: Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers (2013) 8 SCC 71.

3. Defective Notice

“The statutory notice, Ex.P5, was issued not by the complainant but by her husband, without any authorisation. Section 138(b) requires notice by the payee or holder in due course. Absence of valid notice vitiates the entire complaint.”

Authority: K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510.

4. No Enforceable Debt

“The complainant admitted that she never dealt with my client. She also failed to prove her financial capacity to lend such a sum. Existence of enforceable debt is a sine qua non under Section 138.”

Authority: Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418.

5. Presumption Rebutted

“Through cross-examination, we have raised a probable defence: (i) no cheque by accused, (ii) no privity of contract, (iii) defective notice, (iv) no financial capacity. As per Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, even a probable defence is sufficie