Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 104
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
Rajesh R Nair – Appellant
Versus
Shivananda Naik – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 114 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3850 of 2022)
Decided On : 08-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Zulfiker Ali P. S, AOR, Mr. Lakshmi Sree P., Adv., Ms. Lebina Baby, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR, Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Adv., Mr. Dushyant Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Ashok Kumar Dhiriyan, Adv., Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Adv.
The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair opportunity for defense before conviction, setting aside previous orders and directing a rehearing on merits.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonored cheques - Appellant convicted and ordered to pay Rs. 21,00,000/- by Trial Court, affirmed by Appellate Court and High Court - Appellant deposited Rs. 12,00,000/- as directed - Conviction set aside for lack of proper opportunity to defend - Trial Court directed to rehear the matter on merits. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 10)
(B) Equity - Appellant's conviction set aside to ensure justice and proper opportunity for defense - Orders of lower courts annulled. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for dishonoring two cheques totaling Rs. 21,00,000/-, with the conviction upheld by higher courts. The appellant deposited Rs. 12,00,000/- as per court directions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant was not afforded a proper opportunity to defend himself, warranting the setting aside of previous orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was given a fair chance to contest the charges against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of a fair trial and the right to defend oneself, leading to the annulment of prior convictions and a directive for a fresh hearing.
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Two cheques for a total sum of Rs. 21,00,000/-(Rupees twenty-one lakhs) issued by the appellant were dishonored. Thereupon, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were initiated. The defence of the appellant was struck off for non deposit of the amount and the appellant was convicted and asked to pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-(Rupees twenty- one lakhs) by the Trial Court, failing which, he was to undergo imprisonment for three months.
4. The aforesaid order has been affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Court as also in the revision by the High Court.
5. On the present appeal being preferred, this Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lakhs) with the Trial Court within a period of four weeks probably with the intention that once the said amount is deposited, the matter may be reheard on merits before the Trial Court.
6. The appellant in compliance with the above order has already deposited a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs), as directed. It is submitted that the appellant has further deposited a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs) as per the direction of the Appellate Court and therefore, a total of Rs. 12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakhs) has already been deposited by him.
7. The submission is that in view of the above deposits, the appellant may be permitted to contest the matter on merits after setting aside the orders of conviction.
8. Taking equitable view of the matter, since the appellant has been convicted without affording him proper opportunity to defend himself, in the ends of justice, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court dated 28.02.2022 as also the order of the Appellate Court dated 04.03.2021 and the order of the Trial Court dated 15.02.2019. The Trial Court is directed to allow the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence and to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law, most expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.
9. The amount already deposited by the appellant shall be invested in a Fixed Deposit with the nationalized bank. However, the respondent is at liberty to apply for the release of the same, which may be considered if the respondent furnishes adequate indemnity for the purpose.
10. The present appeal is allowed in the above terms.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
