Back
2011 (5) Supreme 221
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Anil Sachar & Anr. — Appellants
versus
M/s. Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd. & Ors. etc. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1413-1414 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1830-1831 of 2009)
Decided on : 19-7-2011
Facts of the Case :
Complaint alleging dishonour of cheques was filed herein in the instant case. Trial Court acquitted accused persons .Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2. Present appeals have been filed against said orders of Courts below.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that Perusal of record showed that there was an understanding among complainants and accused that in consideration of supply of goods to M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd., M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. was to make the payment. Said understanding was on account of the fact that directors in both companies were common and said companies were sister concerns. In the circumstances, it was held to be proved that in consideration of supply of goods to M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd., M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. had made the payment. Instantly , M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. paid the cheque which had been duly signed by one of its Directors, Respondent4. Respondent4 was also a Director in M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Both were sister concerns having common Directors. Evidence on record that both the companies were having several transactions and the companies used to pay on behalf of each other to other parties or their creditors. Said fact strengthened the presumption to the effect that M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. had paid the cheques to the complainants, which had been signed by Respondent 4, in consideration of goods supplies to M/s Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Even though presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable. However no effort was made by Respondent4 or any of the Directors of M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. for rebuttal of said presumption .Trial court wrongly acquitted the accused. Said incorrect view was wrongly confirmed by High Court. Impugned acquittal order passed by courts below was held liable to be set aside. Appeals were allowed.
JUDGMENT
Anil R. Dave, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the common Judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal Nos.379-MA of 2007 and 381-MA of 2007 dated 16th December, 2008 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the original complainants have filed these appeals. By virtue of the aforestated judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the Orders dated 4th May, 2007 passed in Criminal Complaint Nos. 46 and 99 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana whereby the accused in the aforestated complaints had been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
3. The facts leading to the present litigation in a nut shell are as under:
4. On 23rd February, 1999, Respondent no.4 - Munish Jain, a Director of M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. had given in all four cheques for different amounts to Anil Sachar, partner of M/s. Rati Woolen Mills who are appellant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. According to the case of the complainants, the said cheques were given to M/s. Rati Woolen Mills, of which appellant no.1 is a partner, in consideration of supply of goods to M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
5. The aforestated cheques, which had been given by Munish Jain as Director of M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd., had not been honoured and due to dishonour of the said cheques, the complainant, namely, Anil Sachar, as a partner of M/s. Rati Woolen Mills had issued notice as required under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In spite of the said notice, the complainant was not paid the amount covered under the aforestated cheques and, therefore, complaints had been filed against the present respondents.
6. The case of the present respondents before the trial court as well as before the High Court was that the dispute was of a civil nature and with an oblique motive it was given a colour of criminal litigation. The said reply had been given especially in view of the fact that the complaint had also been filed making out a case against the accused under the provisions of Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. The case of the complainants was that M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. is a sister concern of M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. and the aforestated cheques were given by Munish Jain towards dues of M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. as a Director of M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. After considering the evidence adduced and the arguments made before the trial court, the trial court acquitted the accused for the reason that the goods had been supplied by the complainants to M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. and the cheques had not been given by M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. but they had been given by M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. As M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. are two different legal entities and as there was nothing on record to show that the cheques were given by M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. in consideration of goods supplied by the complainants to M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd., the conclusion was that there was no liability of M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. and, therefore, dishonour of the aforestated cheques would not make signatory of the cheques from the account of M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. liable under the provisions of the Act.
8. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, dated 4th May, 2007, criminal appeals were filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, but the said appeals have been dismissed and, therefore, the original complainants have approached this Court by way of these appeals.
9. It may be noted here that during the pendency of the proceedings, Mohinder Jain, accused/respondent no.3 expired and, therefore, deleted from the array of parties.
10. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainants mainly submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the High Court committed an error by acquitting the accused sim
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
