GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (5) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (5) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Offence under Negotiable Instruments Act - dishonor of cheque - Revision petition - Trial court convicted with sentenced of rigorous imprisonment for 9 months, compensation of ₹ 4 lakhs within three months from the date of the order, with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment under Section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that:- It is the specific case of the respondent/complainant that when the ch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

osed the case as 'Mistake of Fact' and no further steps have been taken either to reopen the case or to file a private complaint.

The Courts below had recorded the concurrent findings as to the guilt on the part of the revision petitioner/accused for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and this Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire material placed before it, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pondent/private complainant also and this Court, after considering the said plea and taking into consideration of the fact that now the revision petitioner is aged about 62 years, is of the view that sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court is to be set aside, instead, the default sentence is to be imposed in the event of non payment of compensation. - In the result, the criminal revision is dismissed confirming the conviction of the revision .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion petitioner/accused under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidences, has convicted the revision petitioner vide judgment dated 24.06.2000 and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months, compensation of ₹ 4 lakhs within three months from the date of the order with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. The revision petitioner, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Proprietor of Southern Mills and she had business dealings from the year 1994 with the respondent Firm and as per the books of accounts maintained by the respondent/complainant, a sum of ₹ 12,33,114.55/- is due and payable. Towards discharge of part of the said dues, the revision petitioner/accused had issued cheques dated 09.04.1995, 13.04.1995, 17.04.1995, 18.04.1995, 21.04.1995, 24.04.1995, 27.04.1995 and 30.04.1995 for a sum of ₹ 50,000/- each. The respondent/private complain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on petitioner/accused came to the business place of the respondent/private complainant and told them that she is unable to arrange for the funds and hence revalidate all the cheques by altering the year of the cheques from 1995 to 1996. The respondent Firm also issued a notice on 17.07.1996 to the revision petitioner/accused stating that they are going to present the cheques and asked her to take steps to honour the said cheques. On 18.07.1996, the cheques were presented by the respondent/privat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to file the said private complaint seeking her prosecution for the commission of the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The trial Court, on appearance of the revision petitioner/accused, has questioned her as to the commission of offences and she pleaded not guilty. The respondent/complainant in order to sustain its case has examined one of its partners as P.W.1 and also P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P36. 5. The revision petitioner/accused was quest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.V.K.Sathyamurthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, made the following submissions: (i) The sworn statement of one of the partners of the respondent Firm does not contain the relevant particulars and so also the complaint. (ii) Material alteration has been done in the cheques to extend the period of limitation. (iii) Originally a case in C.C.No.617 of 1996 was pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Karur and as per the order passed by this Court, it was transferred to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

olice Station has registered a case in Crime No.964 of 1996 and subsequently it was closed as 'Mistake of Fact' and no proper investigation in that case was conducted and the revision petitioner/accused was also not put on notice with regard to the filing of the referred charge sheet and therefore, the closure of the said case would not come to the aid of the revision petitioner/complainant. All the documents relating to the closure of the said case have been filed by the respondent/comp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the alteration of the year made in the cheques pursuant to filing of the present complaint on the face of it, is unsustainable in law. (v) The respondent/complainant without filing any petition to let in additional evidence had straight away marked number of documents and it is a procedural irregularity, which has affected the core of the case projected by the respondent/private complainant. (vi) In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

counsel for the respondent/complainant, has invited the attention of this Court to the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and would submit that the Courts below, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidences in proper perspective, had rightly reached the conclusion to convict and sentence the revision petitioner/accused and this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction may not interfere with the well considered finding rendered by the Courts below and prays for dismissal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

post dated cheques for business transactions and there was an earlier notice on 02.02.1996 and immediately receipt of the said notice, a detail reply has been sent on 13.02.1996 stating among other things that the amounts due and payable mentioned in the said notice have also been paid by way of cash and demand draft and in spite of payment, the respondent/complainant did not return the cheques and by using the same, filed the false complaint. 11. It is further stated in the said reply notice th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that when the revision petitioner/accused appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Karur, in connection with C.C.No.617 of 1996 on 12.07.1996, she along with her husband were kidnapped and signatures were forcefully obtained in blank papers as well as stamp papers and cheques have also been altered and also admitted in Exs.P3 to P10, the year mentioned therein has been altered and the said fact has not been disclosed in the sworn sta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

presence of the accused. He has pleaded ignorance about the presence of the accused before Judicial Magistrate,No.I, Karur on 12.07.1996 and no records available to that effect with regard to the criminal case registered against P.W.1 on the basis of the complaint given by revision petitioner. 14. D.W.2 is a Lawyer and he has spoken about the fact of effecting compromise at the instance of one Mr.Saidai Duraisamy, former Member of Legislative Assembly, between the revision petitioner/accused and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and 495355 dated 25.05.1995 for ₹ 50,000/-). 16. The complainant has also marked Exs.P18 to P32 to show that there was business transactions between them. 17. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that admittedly a criminal case came to be registered against P.W.1 alleging kidnapping on his part and getting signatures in blank stamp papers as well as other papers and with regard to the alteration of cheques and the said case, after investigation wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tting signatures in blank papers as well as stamp papers, became final. 19. A perusal of the reply notice, marked as Ex.P16 would also disclose that the revision petitioner/accused has also pleaded discharge and it is her further allegation that in spite of discharge, the respondent/private complainant did not return back the cheques, which have been given as security. But it is also to be pointed out that she did not take any immediate steps to get back the return of cheques in question. 20. It .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n this regard, has become final, as the jurisdictional police has closed the case as 'Mistake of Fact' and no further steps have been taken either to reopen the case or to file a private complaint. 21. Ex.D4 marked through D.W.2 would also disclose that there was a settlement of part of the amount and it is also evidenced the fact that there was a business transactions between the revision petitioner/accused and the respondent/private complainant. 22. Though the learned counsel for the r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Negotiable Instruments Act and this Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire material placed before it, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity on the findings rendered by the Courts below. 24. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused made alternately that the revision petitioner being a lady has imposed with a present sentence of nine months simple imprisonment and considering the fact that she has also levied w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version