SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Bom) 247

In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. BORKAR
Ramkrishna Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.
Versus
Shri Rajendra Bhagchand Warma
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 898 OF 2009
Decided on : 16-02-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant:L.B. Pallod, Advocate.
For the Respondent:J.M. Murkute, Advocate for sole.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Application for leave to file appeal - Respondent acquitted - Applicant society had advanced loan to respondent - Repayment cheques bounced - No payment in spite of notice - Magistrate acquitted on ground that ten cheques issued in disbursement of loan - Amount so withdrawn not reflect in account books - Respondent told he paid full amount and possess receipts - If amount is to be paid back at moment it is paid borrower - Section 138 of N.I. Act not attracted - Blank cheques issued prior to disbursement of loan a collateral security - When cheques issued there was no existing debt - Account books not complete - No proof as on date of cheque any amount was outstanding - Not a fit case to grant leave for appeal against acquittal order. - Blank cheques were issued prior to disbursement of loan as a collateral security for loan which was sanctioned. In such case there was no existing debt or liability when the cheque is issued. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the case does not fall within four corners of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Of course such defence is available against payee and not holder in due course.

       The respondent accused in his evidence on record has produced receipts issued by the complainant bank at Exhs. 61 to 75. It is case of the respondent/accused that he had repaid entire loan in the year 2005. In para 17 it is observed that the account extract produced by complainant bank at Exh. 25 was produced up to 12.12.2003. In spite of sufficient opportunity, the accounts extract of subsequent period up to the date of cheque (which was 24.1.2008) was not produced. Obviously the payment made after 12.12.2003 did not appear in the account extract produced. In these circumstances, the Court held that it is not proved that on the date appearing on the cheque or the date on which the cheque as presented, amount of Rs. 87,200/- was outstanding.

       The cheque issued was for much higher amount than was actually due and therefore it cannot be said that the cheque was issued towards debt or other liability within the meaning of Section 139, and offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not committed. In said case the Court distinguished between ’liability’ and ’security’ and observed that both cannot be mixed or acted upon simultaneously. In para 6 it is observed that if the act of a person in discharge of liability is not done, then security comes in picture and if the act in discharge of a liability is performed then security would not have any legal force.

Judgment :

1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Ahmednagar in S.T.C. No. 960 of 2008, decided on 21.01.2009, whereby the respondent is acquitted of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this application may be stated as below:.

Present applicant has filed private complaint alleging that the complainant is a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is doing banking business. The respondent for his business had taken loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) on 18.10.2000 and for satisfaction of the loan, he executed promissory note, mortgage deed, guarantee deed etc. The respondent has agreed to repay amount from time to time by installments. Accordingly, cheque No. 500276 of Rs. 87,209/- drawn on Ahmednagar Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch – Dalmandai, Ahmednagar, was issued. The cheque was dated 24.01.2008. When the complainant/applicant presented the cheque, it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, on 11.02.2008 a notice was issued by the complainant/applicant, but inspite of the same, the amount was not paid by the respondent and therefore the complaint was filed.

3. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence led by both sides, passed the order of acquittal acquitting the respondent of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, mainly on three grounds. Firstly, it is held that as many as ten blank cheques were obtained by the applicant bank while sanctioning/disbursing loan as security and one of them was used in the present case; secondly, there is bar of limitation; and thirdly, amounts paid by the respondent, in respect of which he has produced receipts in defence, were not reflected in the extract of account produced on record and as such it is not proved that the amount of Rs. 89,209/- was due on the date of the cheque. As against said decision of acquittal, the applicant/complainant wishes to file the appeal and therefore he filed this application under section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for leave to file appeal.

4. Heard Adv. Shri L.B. Pallod for the applicant and Adv. Shri J.M. Murkute for the respondent.

5. The Trial Court in para 12 onwards has considered the evidence on record. The respondent/accused in his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief has stated that he had repaid the entire loan in the year 2005 and he possessed receipts thereof. He also stated that while granting loan, ten blank cheques signed by him were obtained. No cheque was issued by him of amount due towards loan. It is observed that in the cross-examination said evidence has remained unshaken and the suggestions put on behalf of the complainant were denied. The Court also came to a conclusion in para 13 that the evidence of the accused/respondent was reliable. It is proved that he had given 10 blank signed cheques to the complainant. In order to substantiate this, he has examined P.W.3-Ashok Jindam, who was officer of the Ahmednagar Merchants Cooperative Bank. Said witness has stated that cheque book containing cheque No. 500276 was given to the accused/respondent on 04.10.2000. He proved document Exh.46. He also produced account extract at Exh.47. This evidence was also unshaken in cross-examination. The witness was found reliable witness by the Trial Court. The document at Exh.46 shows that the cheque book bearing cheque in question was issued to the respondent/accused on 04.10.2000. It was cheque book contained cheque Nos. 500276 to 500300. Thereafter on 13.11.2001 another cheque book was issued. On 22.02.2005 third cheque book was issued to the respondent. The account extract at Exh.47 clearly shows that the cheques bearing Nos. 500288 to 500299 were used till 24.09.2001 and thereafter cheques issued in the second ch




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top