Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
T.P. MURUGAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BOJAN – RESPONDENT(S)
AND
POSA NANDHI REP. THR. POA HOLDER, T.P. MURUGAN – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BOJAN – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 950-951 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) Nos. 10111-10112 of 2014)
Decided On : 31-07-2018
(2010) 11 SCC 441; (2001)8 SCC 458 – Relied upon
(2015)8 SCC 378 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This case relates to section 138 of the NI Act.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent has failed to rebut the presumption u/s 139 by credible evidence.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
INDU MALHOTRA, J:
(1) The present Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1657 and 1658 of 2008. That after issuance of notice, Special Leave Petitions were heard finally.
Leave granted.
(1.1) These Appeals arise out of two complaints filed under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“the N.I. Act”) filed by the appellants against the respondent for dishonour of two cheques of Rs.37,00,000/-and Rs.14,00,000/- respectively.
(2) The facts of the case briefly stated are as under: -
(2.1) The appellants submit that they were inducted in Maanihada Tea Produce Company Pvt. Ltd. being run by the respondent to infuse capital by way of deposits and shares.
(2.2) On 24.11.1998, the appellants resigned as Directors of the Company after which the respondent and his son, DW-3, remained in-charge of the Company.
The appellants submitted that the respondent failed to return their share in the company. The appellants made demands for re-payment of their dues.
On 07.08.2002, the respondent issued a Promissory Note for Rs.51,00,000/-in favour of K. Posa Nandhi – the appellant in the Second Appeal. The Promissory Note records that it was being issued against a loan. The respondent also issued two cheques on the same date, one for Rs.37,00,000/-in favour of K.Posa Nandhi, and the other for Rs. 14,00,000/-in favour of T.P.Murugan, towards discharge of their liability for the investments made in M/s. Maanihada Tea Produce Company.
(2.3) The cheques were presented for encashment on 03.02.2003 by the appellants, which were dishonoured due to “Stop Payment” instructions issued by the respondent.
(2.4) The appellants issued the statutory notices under S.138 of the N.I. Act calling upon the respondent to discharge their debt/liability and clear their dues.
(2.5) The respondent vide his reply dated 17.02.2003 refuted the claim of the appellants.
(2.6) The appellants filed two complaints under S. 138 of the N.I. Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore.
(2.7) The respondent contended that the signed blank Promissory Note was issued by him in favour of N.R.R. Finances Investments Pvt. Ltd. under a hire-purchase agreement for purchasing a lorry on loan basis. The said Promissory Note was not issued in favour of the appellant- complainants. The Promissory Note was filled up by DW.2 Mahesh, an employee of N.R.R. Investments, after the signatures of the respondent were obtained on the same.
With respect to the two cheques which were dishonoured, the respondent contended that these were amongst 10 blank cheques signed and handed over to the appellant-K.Posa Nandhi as security, when he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/-in 1995. That even though this loan was re-paid in 1996 with interest, the cheques were not returned. The respondent further contended that he had issued a letter on 09.11.2002 asking the appellants to return the 10 blank cheques.
(3) The Trial Court found that the respondent had admitted his signatures both on the Pronote and also on the two cheques for Rs. 37,00,000/-and Rs.14,00,000/-respectively. The respondent also admitted that the appellant had invested capital in their concern viz. M/s. Maanihada Tea Factory.
The Court disbelieved the version of the respondent with respect to the 10 blank cheques issued to the appellant in 1995. The respondent failed to place any material on record to show that he had ever asked for return of the 10 blank cheques, allegedly given by him to the respondent, for seven years.
That after going through the detailed evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court held that the Cheques and Pronote were issued for repayment/discharge of a lawful debt. The respondent was found guilty under S. 138 of the N.I. Act, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and Fine of Rs.5000/-, failing which, he shall undergo one month’s R.I.
(4) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respond
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
