Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L. SINGHAL, J.
Crl. M/sc.No. 28199-M of 1998
Decided on 21.7.1999
PAWAN SACHDEVA
versus
STATE (U.T., CHANDIGARH)
The court held that the accused were entitled to anticipatory bail as the genuineness of the receipt-cum-undertaking was a matter of dispute and the accused had produced evidence to suggest that it was genuine.
Headnote:
BAIL - SECTION 420/467/471, IPC - SECTION 138, NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - SECTION 340, CR.P.C. - SECTION 482, CR.P.C. - SUMMARY OF FACTS, COURT ANALYSIS, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI AND FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Pawan Sachdeva, Sadhna Sachdeva, and Krishna Sachdeva, Managing Director and Directors of M/s. M.S. Shoes Ltd., were accused of issuing a cheque for Rs. 50,97,320/- that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant, M/s. Modella Knitwears Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the proceedings, the accused produced a receipt-cum-undertaking acknowledging the payment of Rs. 40 lacs in full and final settlement of the claim. However, the complainant alleged that the receipt was forged. The accused also produced three invoices that were allegedly forged to match the signatures on the receipt. The accused were convicted under Section 138 of the Act, and Pawan Sachdeva was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 12,000/-. The accused filed a petition for anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that Pawan Sachdeva had been convicted under Section 138 of the Act and that his appeal against the conviction was pending before the Sessions Court. The court also observed that the genuineness of the receipt-cum-undertaking was a matter of dispute and that the accused had produced evidence to suggest that it was genuine. The court further noted that the accused were women and that equities demanded that they be granted anticipatory bail.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused should be granted anticipatory bail in the case of FIR No. 304 dated 5.10.1998 under Sections 420/467/471, IPC of PS Sector 17, Chandigarh? 2. Whether the receipt-cum-undertaking produced by the accused was genuine?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused were entitled to anticipatory bail as the genuineness of the receipt-cum-undertaking was a matter of dispute and the accused had produced evidence to suggest that it was genuine. The court also considered the fact that the accused were women and that equities demanded that they be granted anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail to Mrs. Sadhna Sachdeva and Mrs. Krishna Sachdeva. The court also allowed anticipatory bail to Pawan Sachdeva, but it was subject to the condition that it would only be effective until the decision of his appeal by the Sessions Court. The court directed the Sessions Judge to decide the appeal before 31.10.1999.
M.L. Singhal, J.- Through this Crl. Misc. No. 28198-M of 1998, Pawan Sachdeva, Sadhna Sachdeva and Krishna Sachdeva who are Managing Director and Directors respectively of M/s. M.S. Shoes Ltd. have prayed for the grant of bail to them in case FIR No. 304 dated 5.10.1998 under Sections 420/467/471, IPC of PS Sector 17, Chandigarh.
2. Briefly stated, the alleged facts which have given rise to this case are as follows:
M/s. Modella Knitwears Ltd. SCO 44, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh (complainant) through Shri Ashok Goyal, its authorised appointed Representative of the Company instituted complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act) against the petitioners (herein) on the allegations that the complainant is a Company incorporate, under the Companies Act, 1956. Arun Goyal is the Managing Director of this Company while Ashok Goyal and M.L. Goyal are directors of the Company. This Company is manufacturer of high class hosiery items. M/s. M.S. Shoes (accused) is also a Company. Pawan Sachdeva and his wife Sadhna Sachdeva approached the complainant Company for the purchase of hosiery items for their business on behalf of their Company. As per their orders, hosiery items were dispatched from time-to-time. Transactions between these two companies took place w.e.f. 10.6.1993 to 26.10.1995. Complainant Company has been maintaining the accounts pertaining to the transactions vis-a-vis the issue of bills and payments as and when received recorded therein. Payments were not made in time as per settled terms and conditions but the complainants accepted the delayed payments at the request and assurance of the accused persons so that their business relations remained cordial. Liability qua the total supply of the hosiery items which was duly received by the accused reached Rs. 1,53,48,740/. In order to discharge part of the liability, the accused persons issued cheque No. 87400 110022022 dated 28.10.1995 for Rs. 50,97,320/- payable to Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi. Cheque was issued and given by Pawan Sachdeva, M.D. of the accused Company at Chandigarh in the office of the complainant. Sadhna Sachdeva, Director of the accused Company was also present of that time along with Pawan Sachdeva. Cheque was presented by the complainant Company in its account with Canara Bank, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh for its realisation through clearance. Cheque was returned unpaid by the Canara Bank with memo dated 27.2.1996 recording insufficient funds issued by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act allegedly after complying with the procedure laid down in that Act at Chandigarh. During the period, since the accused side owned some amount to the sister concern M/s. Pearl Intercontinental Ltd. of the complainant side, accused made payment on 26.11.1996 of Rs. 40 lacs through two Bank cheques No. 048165 and 048166 each for Rs. 20-lacs on 11.12.1996 i.e. the date filed in the complaint case under Section 138 of the Act. The accused produced receipt which was alleged to have been issued by the complainant Company acknowledging the Bankers cheque of Rs. 40 lacs and in the receipt, it was also stated that the amount of Rs. 40 lacs had been received in full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant Company i.e. laid in the said complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No such receipt was issued by the complainant. Accused forged this receipt with a view to secure the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Accused produced the forged receipt with a view to the Court holding that in view of receipt the entire claim stood fully satisfied. In complaint under Section 138 of the Act, this plea of the accused did not find favour with the Court and complaint was not dismissed. As per complainant Company Receipt relied upon by the accused was neither signed by the complainant Company nor issued by the complainant
