Dishonor of cheques due to insufficient funds and stop payment instructions issued by the drawer constitutes a prima facie case of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Y. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 410 of 1990 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, visakhapatnam.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that: the second respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioners herein alleging offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act and Section 4201. P. C. The first petitioner is a private limited company and the second petitioner is one of the directors of the first petitioner company. The office of the second respondent is situated at Visakhapatnam, within the limits of in Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. The first petitioner is a private limited company dealing in export of Tea, Spices, Frozen Fishes, meat, Fresh Mangoes and Rice etc. , with their registered Office at Bombay and executive Office at Calcutta.

( 3 ) THE petitioners, for the purpose of exporting Fresh/chilled fish, chartered the Deep sea fishing trawler sagar Padmini from the second respondent. As per the agreement it was agreed between the petitioners and the second respondent that the petitioners have to pay hire charges of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 for thirty days and towards the said charges the second respondent collected cheques bearing no. 147195 dated 18-6-1989 for Rs. 50,000. 00 and another cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- bearing no. 147196, Dated 18-7-1989. When the second respondent presented these two cheques through the S. B. I. , Overseas Branch for payment, the cheques were dishonoured. The cheque for Rs. 50,000/- was dishonoured by the Bank with an endorsement dated 21-6-1989 as "exceeds arrangement". The other cheque issued for Rs. 1,00,000. 00 was also dishonoured by the Bank on 31-7-1989 with an endorsement "payment is stopped by the drawer. " The period of charter expired on 24-8-1989 and the petitioners failed to exercise their option for extension by fifteen days prior notice or failed to redeliver the Vessel. The second respondent sent his Fleet Manager to Port Blair to bring back the Vessel to visakhapatnam. It is stated that later the second petitioner sent a Telex message dated 22-8-1989 to the second respondent with a request to continue the Vessel with their company upto 15-9-1989 and promised to pay Rs. 50,000. 00 being the part of the arrears of hire charges of demand draft and the balance of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 on or before 15-9-1989 and all other problems would be discussed only after payment of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 by mid-September. But on account of the past conduct of the accused with regard to hire charges, the second respondent made it clear that he would not be able to discuss unless the entire rental due of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 is paid and the Vessel is redelivered at Visakhapatnam. For the said Telex the second petitioner issued another reply dated 22-8-1989 by means of another Telex to the effect that they have decided to handover the Vessel immediately. Later, the second petitioner sent another Telex dated 25-8-1989 to the effect that they were trying to come down to Visakhapatnam on 26/27th August, 1989 for personal discussions. Accordingly, the second petitioner came down and discussions were held for extension of the Charter, but talks failed. Therefore, the second respondent filed the complaint under sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC. On the basis of the complaint, after examining the complainant, the court below has taken cognizance of the offences and registered the complaint as c. C. No. 410/90.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners firstly contended that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose any offence, much less an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the act .) There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have committed the offences as alleged.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the Public prosecutor contended that the complainant has given all the detailed facts and the said facts clearly constitute th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document