TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The judgments of the courts below are concurrent since the issuance of the cheques and also the signature found in the cheques are admitted and also the statutory presumption has not been rebutted by the petitioner. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court need not to sit in the armchair of the judgments of the courts below. It is enough to see as to whether there is any perversity in the orders of the courts below while appreciating evidence of finding regarding the facts. A substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that even in the absence of any f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithal, whereby an appeal against judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2006 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2006 passed by the trial court, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/ respondent No.1 Haryana Financial Corporation (for short, Corporation ) advanced some credit to M/s Anmol Agro India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners were Directors of the said firm. The firm, through petitioner Sanjiv Kumar, issued two account payee post dated cheques bearing Nos.641549 and 641550 dated 25.12.1997 and 15.01.1998 in the sum of ₹ 7,50,000/- each, drawn on State Bank of India, Kaithal, in favour of complainant Corporation, qua payment of amount due towards the petitioners. However, on presentation of cheques befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imple imprisonment for a period of two years, payment of compensation to the tune of ₹ 15 lac each to the complainant within one month and payment of fine to the tune of ₹ 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentenced were challenged in appeal before the Sessions Court which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 14.09.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the courts below have grossly erred in reading the facts and law. The courts below have overlooked the material evidence on record to the effect that ₹ 10 lac had been deposited by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed to indemnify the complainant. Thus, the courts below did not commit any error in holding the petitioners guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. There is no dispute with regard to the signatures found on the cheques and also their execution. Once the signature on the cheques and also the execution of the cheque are admitted, there is a statutory presumption that the cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt and the said presumption is a rebutted presumption. The petitioner has not rebutted the statutory presumption. Both the courts below have found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The judgments of the courts below are concurrent since the issuance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. Thus, procedural defects which do not go the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. In other words, a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed, a person by virtue of the office which he holds, could sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In view of the above discussion, the judgments recorded by the courts below are well reasoned. On reading of the entire material placed before this Court, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgments of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
