TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased silk from him. The cheque was presented and the same was dishonoured. Again on the instructions of the petitioner/accused, the complainant presented the cheque after three months. This time also the cheque was dishonoured, as funds was insufficient. Since the amount was not paid even on notice, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial, the trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000, in default to undergo S.I. for 3 months. As against this judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed. Hence, the revision. 3. The facts in Crl.R.C. No.431 of 1997 are as follows: The complainant was doing silk busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 418 of 1997 is concerned, regarding the first point that failure in issuing notice within 15 days from the date of intimation, it was held by both the courts below that Ex.P.6, the return memo was issued on 26.12.92 and that P.W.3 the Bank Manager stated that the Memo would be sent after 10 days and as such, the notice sent on 11.1.93 was within the period of limitation. The relevant observation of the lower appellate court is as follows:- Admittedly, Ex.P.6 was issued on 26.12.92. The Manager of Karur Vysya Bank, Arani was examined as P.W.3. He would say in his evidence that the Memorandum will be sent after 10 days. From his evidence, it is very clear that the Ex.P.6 was received by the respondent after 10 days from 26.12.92. After re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm was liable to pay the amount to the complaint and towards the discharge of its liability, the firm issued the cheques, it cannot be contended that the firm also should be made as an accused. 10. On going through the evidence of witnesses, it is clear that the petitioner purchased silk on credit basis and issued cheques towards the discharge of his liability to the complainant. The learned counsel would point out that in the cheques the petitioner signed only as a partner and that therefore, it must be taken to mean that he issued the Cheques only on behalf of the firm. This argument does not appeal to me, since there is no material to show that the firm purchased silk from the complainant on credit basis. Moreover, it is pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
