9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo 12 months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. The trial Court also ordered compensation to the tune of Rs.23,00,000/- to the respondent payable by the petitioner herein. 2.The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3.The crux of the complaint is that the respondent is a public limited company, and it is represented by its Senior Executive (Legal). The petitioner intr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he himself was examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.12. 5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo 12 months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, he shall undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. The trial Court also ordered compensation by paying the cheque amount of Rs.23,00,000/- in favour of the respondent payable by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli and the same was also dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid a fine amount to the authorities. There are no such companies called M/s.Trial Tex and TKT Corporation and as such, there was no job work executed by the respondent. There is no contract of guarantee as alleged by the respondent to punish the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Even assuming that the petitioner stood as a guarantor for the said two companies, he cannot be held liable to be punished for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact, the petitioner issued a cheque to one Lakshminarayanan, who is one of the senior officials of the respondent company towards meeting the educational expenses of his daughter. Instead of repaying the said debt, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10.The respondent lodged the complaint to punish the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that the petitioner had issued cheque on behalf of the two companies as guarantor, which were allegedly introduced by the petitioner, namely M/s.Trial Tex and TKT Corporation at Tiruppur. Further, alleged that the petitioner introduced the said companies in order to do job work. After completion of job work to the tune of Rs.25,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic stand of the petitioner is that the said two companies were not in existence, and he is no way connected with the said companies, and he never stood as a guarantee. The petitioner is only an adviser of the Central Excise, Customs and Foreign Trade. In fact, he acted as a consultant and adviser for the respondent and claimed a bill for his travel expenses and fees. It was marked as Ex.D.10. Immediately, after receipt of the statutory notice, the petitioner issued a reply notice, which was marked as Ex.P.7. It revealed that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent as an export consultant for solving their problem with DGFT/customs Department at various levels. The petitioner is in no way connected with M/s.Trial Tex and TKT Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner stood as a guarantee for the said companies and issued impugned cheque in the present complaint in the capacity of guarantee, whether he is liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 15.Even according to the respondent, a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- was payable by the two companies called M/s.Trial Tex and TKT Corporation of Tiruppur, on behalf of the said two companies, the petitioner, being a guarantee, issued cheque on behalf of the said two companies. However, the respondent did not issue any statutory notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the said companies. The respondent also failed to add them as parties to the proceedings initiated f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
