Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 433 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - dues was against the company but the cheque was issued by the petitioner from his personal account - Legally enforceable debt or not - specific case of the complainant was that the accused procured the supply of railway tickets in his favour from the complainant dishonestly with fraudulent intention and did not intend to pay the same - section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the cheque has been issued by the petitioner and the petitioner claims that the debt was legally enforceable against the company in which he was working and not against him as the petitioner was merely an employee of the company having office at Hyderabad. This Court finds that vide letter dated 25.11.2003 issued by the petitioner, the complainant was asked by the accused to hold the cheque for some time as it was likely that his company would issue appropriate cheque in discharge of the entire debt. The cheque was issued by the petitioner only to the extent of ₹ 88,355/- and the entire amount payable to the complainant-company was to the tune of 1,33,101/-. Thus, the cheque was certainly issued in discharge of the legally enforceable debt - The company having not cleared the dues of the complainant, the complainant presented the cheque which bounced twice. This Court finds that the presumption in connection with issuance of cheque that the same was issued against legally enforceable debt could not be rebutted by the petitioner and the only argument advanced by the petitioner is that there was no legally enforceable debt against the petitioner and the debt was only against his company - The present case is not related to any vicarious liability which arises when the cheque is issued by the company. In this case, the cheque is issued by the accused in his personal capacity and his specific case is that the debt was against the company and not against him. The petitioner would still be convicted even if he issues his personal cheque in discharge of the dues of the company. The learned appellate court has rightly held that petitioner being signatory of the bounced cheque is clearly responsible for non- payment of the amount to the complainant and rightly upheld the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or perversity in conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
|