9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prietor of the firm being run in the name and style of "Action Suit". The accused, in order to repay the loan advanced by one Govarthanam of "Govarthanam Textiles" had issued a cheque drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Ernakulam Branch to the said Govarthanam. On 5.6.2002, the said Govarthanam had received a loan of ₹ 2,00,000/- from one Sivakumar, the complainant herein and had endorsed the said cheque issued to him by the accused to and in favour of the complainant. On 21.6.2002, when the complainant had deposited the said cheque with his bankers viz., South Indian Bank, Erode Branch, it was returned with the endorsement of "payment stopped by drawer". The complainant came to know about return of cheque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm was a registered partnership firm, and in support of his evidence had marked Exhibit P-11; that the power of attorney letter given to him had been marked as Exhibit P-1; that there were business transactions in textiles between him and the accused; that in the course of business, the accused has to pay him a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/-; that in order to settle the said debt, the accused had issued a cheque dated 21.6.2002, drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Ernakulam Branch, for a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- to him; that the said cheque was marked as Exhibit P-2; that he had endorsed the said cheque given to him by the accused to the complainant herein for settlement of loan payable by him to the complainant; that when the said cheque was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of cheque return register had been marked as Exhibit P-13. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate framed three issues viz., (i) Whether the complainant and the accused had business transaction relating to textiles? (ii) Whether the complainant had sold the accused textiles on credit basis? and (iii) Whether the accused had issued the cheque for ₹ 2,00,000/- to the complainant for payment towards such supply of clothes? 7. It is seen from Exhibit R-1, the settlement agreement that business transactions existed between the accused and the complainant. It is also seen that the complainant had been supplying lungis to the accused. It is seen from the agreement that the accused had admitted that he owes the complainant a sum of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of endorsement itself has not been mentioned and that this had not been proved on the complainant's side. 10. The learned Magistrate, on considering the oral and documentary evidences held the accused guilty of offence under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed a fine of ₹ 3,000/- in default of payment of fine, the accused was to undergo a further period of simple imprisonment for two months. The learned Magistrate further directed that the present sentence has to be compounded with the sentence imposed on the accused in 243 of 2002. 11. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration has not been proved. The learned judge, on careful scrutiny of evidence of P.W.2, and considering that the civil suit in O.S. No. 350 of 2002 has no relevance to the criminal proceedings, before this Court, and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court. 14. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the accused has preferred the present revision. 15. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the complainant Sivakumar was not examined as a witness in the case and that it has not been proved that the cheque was issued towards any debt or liability. It was pointed out that the learned judge failed to see that the endorsement on the cheque was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mprisonment imposed on the accused is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court reduces the sentence of simple imprisonment from one year to six months. 18. This Court further directs the accused to pay a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), to the complainant as compensation, as it is found to be appropriate. Originally, the case was filed in the year 2002. Therefore, this Court directs the Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode to issue bailable warrant on the accused and secure the accused into judicial custody to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, as per this Court order. If the accused remits the compensation amount of a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) into the credit of C.C. No. 327 of 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
