Back
S. B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Sudhir Kumar Bhalla - PETITIONER
Versus
Jagdish Chand, etc. etc. - RESPONDENT
Appeal (crl.) 776 of 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 777-82 of 2008.
Decided On : 01/05/2008
Indian Penal Code , 1860 – Sections 120 , 420 , 463 , 465 , 468 and 471 – Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 - Section 156 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - One of cheques, in sum of Rs.30,000/-, was stated to have been encashed, whereas other five cheques have been dishonoured on ground of Exceed Arrangement - On respondent sent statutory notices to appellant, which were despatched through registered post - However, same were received back with a report that addressee was not met - Respondent again sent another notice through courier, which again was not accepted by appellant and same was received back with report of refusal - Month appellant on behalf of his firm issued six cheques Export Corporation and International - Out of those six cheques, two cheques were in sums of Rs.30,000/- each and four cheques were in sums of Rs.40,000/- each - All those cheques were drawn in favour of Indian Overseas Bank, Ludhiana – Held , Respondent herein and his wife are proprietors Export Corporation International, Amritsar - Firms deal in saffron, herbs and other like goods and Brothers, 25, Green Park, Ludhiana, of which - Appellant herein is one of partners, has been purchasing various goods from firms - Sale price was being paid in cash and at times, through cheques - On basis of above discussion, it is held that who was one of partners & Brothers, Ludhiana, issued cheques in question to discharge liability of his firm and on presentation , same were dishonoured - Thus, he had committed an offence punishable - This court holds him accordingly guilty for same in each of appeals - For reason that findings qua interpolation in cheques in question have been categorically set aside, proceedings against initiated in court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana, pursuant to FIR registered at Police Statio, Ludhiana, which have been assailed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions must, as a logical consequence, fail - In view of above, criminal appeals and criminal miscellaneous petitions filed are accepted- Proceedings taken against in pursuance to FIR registered at Police Station Ludhiana, are also quashed - On examination of above-stated findings of learned Single Judge in judgment impugned before us, Court find that learned Single Judge has not addressed himself on legal question raised before him by appellant that criminal liability of appellant under provisions are attracted only on account of dishonour of cheques issued in discharge of liability or debt, but not on account of issuance of security cheques - Learned Single Judge has also not given cogent, satisfactory and convincing reasons for disbelieving and discarding pre-charge evidence of appellant corroborated by evidence of expert opinion in regard to interpolation in and fabrication of cheques by adding one more figure 0 to make Rs.30,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- and similarly adding one more figure 0 to make Rs.40,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-. - Appeals shall stand disposed of
ORDER
1. Leave granted in all the above-said Special Leave Petitions.
2. We have seven appeals before us in which the parties are similar. Since all these appeals arise out of common judgments and orders dated 25.01.2007 and 19.02.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 1410-SBA of 2002, Criminal Appeal No. 1411-SBA of 2002, Criminal Appeal No. 1412-SBA of 2002, Criminal Appeal No. 1413-SBA of 2002, Criminal Appeal No. 1433-SBA of 2002, Criminal Misc. Petition No.29090-M of 2001 and Criminal Misc. Petition No.36987-M of 2001. As similar questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, for the sake of convenience they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the appellant, are as follows:-
Jagdish Chand - respondent herein and his wife Smt. Ramesh Rani are the proprietors of M/s Mehra Export Corporation and M/s Mehra International, Katra Hari Singh, Amritsar. The firms deal in saffron, herbs and other like goods. M/s Sudhir Kumar Bhalla and Brothers, 25, Green Park, Ludhiana, of which Sudhir Kumar Bhalla - appellant herein is one of the partners, has been purchasing various goods from the firms of Jagdish Chand and Ramesh Rani. The sale price was being paid in cash and at times, through cheques.
4. In the month of May, 1997, the appellant on behalf of his firm issued six cheques Nos. 442344, 442345, 442346, 442347, 442348 and 442349 dated 01.05.1997, 03.05.1997 and 05.05.1997 in favour of M/s Mehra Export Corporation and M/s Mehra International. Out of those six cheques, two cheques were in the sums of Rs.30,000/- each and four cheques were in the sums of Rs.40,000/- each. All those cheques were drawn in favour of the Indian Overseas Bank, Ludhiana.
5. One of the cheques, in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, was stated to have been encashed, whereas the other five cheques have been dishonoured on the ground of 'Exceed Arrangement'. On 20.05.1997, the respondent sent statutory notices under Section 138 (5) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short 'the Act'] to the appellant, which were despatched through registered post on 24.05.1997. However, the same were received back on 28/29.5.1997 with a report that the addressee was 'not met'. The respondent again sent another notice on 04.06.1997 through courier, which again was not accepted by the appellant and the same was received back on 05.06.1997 with the report of refusal.
6. It was on 13.06.1997 that the respondent, on his behalf and on behalf of his wife as her attorney, filed five criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'the IPC'] in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, against the appellant. On 09.07.1997, the respondent-complainant made a statement that he wanted to withdraw the said complaint with permission to file the fresh complaint. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 09.07.1997 passed the following order:-
"In view of the statement given by the complainant, recorded separately, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn."
7. On 12.07.1997, the respondent filed second complaint on similar and practically the same points purported to have accrued on identical causes of action. The second complaint was entrusted to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar, who recorded the statement/evidence of the respondent on 12.07.1997. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, vide order dated 23.08.1997 issued summon to the appellant. The appellant appeared on 06.04.1998 before the Judicial Magistrate and filed an application for discharging him in the case. However, on 01.06.1998 the Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said application. After following and adopting the due procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), the trial court dismissed the complaint on 06.02.2002 and acquitte
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
