Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 925 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - rebuttal of presumption - section 139 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, accused Bankim Chowdhury was the Chief Managing Director and accused Ratna Debnath was the Accounts Director of Tripura Real Estate Constructions Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. By appearing before the court as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively, they have asserted that their company came out with an advertisement published in a leading daily namely, Dainik Sambad whereunder the company offered sale of land in plots at various places at Agartala and in response to the said advertisement, complainant agreed to purchase a land and paid a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- as advance after executing a written agreement with the company. Admittedly, despite execution of written agreement between the parties and receipt of advance by the appellants, no land was transferred to the complainant respondent in terms of such agreement. DW-2 Ratna Debnath who is one of the convict appellants has categorically stated in her cross examination that due to internal problems of Tripura Real Estate Constructions Limited (convict appellant No.1), the agreement for sale of land to the complainant respondent could not be materialised. She did not attribute any fault to the complainant respondent for non execution of the said agreement - presumption under section 139 of the NI Act arises against the convict appellants. Obviously, the convict appellants could not raise a probable defence to create doubts with regard to the existence of such debt or liability. Rather, it is the admitted position of the case that ₹ 1,00,000/- was received by the appellants as advance from the complainant respondent for transfer of land in his favour for a price of ₹ 7,00,000/- in terms of the agreement executed between the parties. Admittedly, as officers of the appellant company they were aware of the fact that advance of ₹ 1,00,000/- was received from the respondent for sale of land to him and the company had an enforceable debt to the complainant as per the terms of agreement. No land was transferred to him nor the advance was refunded to him. In these circumstances, the liability on account of dishonour of the impugned cheque primarily falls on the drawer company which is a corporate liability and convict appellants No.2 and 3 as the officers of the company are vicariously liable for such offence, the principal accused is the company. In these circumstances, service of demand notice on the Chief Managing Director of the accused company is sufficient. Accused appellant No.2 Ratna Debnath who is the Accounts Director of the company cannot escape her liability by saying that no demand notice was issued to her. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2018 stands affirmed subject to the above modification of the sentence awarded to the company (convict appellant No.1). The company shall pay a fine of ₹ 50,000/- to complainant respondent No.1. Convict appellant No.2 Bankim Chowdhury shall pay ₹ 50,000/- and convict appellant No.3 Ratna Debnath shall also pay fine of ₹ 50,000/- to the claimant respondent and in default Bankim Chowdhury and Ratna Debnath shall suffer SI for a term of 15 days. The criminal revision petition is disposed of.
|