JUDGMENT:- These revisions are filed by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act', for short) and whose convictions and sentences have been upheld by the learned Session Judges.

2. Since the facts involved are almost common, by consent of Counsel they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The cases from which these revisions arise, pertain to the cheques of different dates given by the accused, with letter dated 20/07/1992. The accused was the Managing Director of the Complainant which is a registered company. The details of the said cheques are as follows:

Cheque No. Date Amount Cnmmal Revision No. Case No.

Before JMFC

0160171 10/01/1993 40,000/- Decided by S.C. 1 49/2003

2004 (2) SCC 235

0160112 10/04/1993 40,000/- Crir No.9/2008 150/1993

0160173 10/08/1993 40,000/- Crir No.7/2008 372/1993

0160174 10/12/1993 40,000/- Crir NO.8/2008 10/1994

0160175 10/04/1994 40,000/- Crir No.5/2008 37/1994

0160176 10/08/1994 40,000/- Crir No.4/2008 5/1995

0160177 10/12/1994 40,000/- Crir No.4/2007 66/1995

0160178 10/04/1995 40,000/- Crir No.4/2007 66/1995

0160179 10/08/1995 40,000/- Crir No.6/2008 32/1996

0160180 10/12/1995 40,000/- Crir No.6/2008 32/1996

The case regarding the first cheque no.0160171, dated 10/01/1993 finally ended in conviction against the accused by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20/11/2003 reported in 2004(2) see 235. These cases had also landed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at one stage and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to remand the cases by another judgment dated 7/03/2003 reported in 2003(3) see 232.

3. The case of the Complainant which is a registered company and whose factory apparently came to be closed down, is that the said cheques were issued because the accused owed the Complainant a certain amount and in order to pay the said amount, the accused had drawn the said post dated cheques. The cheques were presented for payment into the account of the Complainant, and as far as Criminal Revision NoA/2007 is concerned, the said cheque was returned on 12/05/1997 with remark 'present again'. The Complainant thereafter sent the notice to the accused demanding the payment. However, the accused did not reply to the notice. Thereafter, the complaints came to be filed on different dates and in support of the case of the Complainant, one LB. Mulchandi came to be examined pursuant to a power of attorney purportedly given by Mr. Audhut Timblo, the Director of the Complainant. The case of the accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was that he had issued the cheques under a mistaken belief that the amount was due. It was further his case that on finding a note (letter from Mr. Timblo) he had realised that he had not owed any money to the Complainant and therefore he informed Mr. Audhut Timblo in writing that there was no liability due. The accused examined himself in support of his defence.

4. The learned trial Court in convicting the accused also referred to the first case (2004(2) SCC 235) and guided by it, proceeded to convict and sentence the accused. The learned first appellate Court noted, and, in my view rightly, that under Criminal law each case has to be decided on its own merits, but did not accept the contention on behalf of the accused that the trial Court had convicted the accused based on the said first judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the learned Magistrate had only noted certain observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said earlier case.

5. At the hearing of these revisions, Counsel appearing on behalf of both parties have also referred to the said judgment, in the first case in 2004(2) see 235.

6. To challenge the convictions, three points have been raised by Shri. Diniz, the learned Counsel on behalf of the accused. The first is that the complaint was filed by a person who was no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document