Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 4608
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Kms Cargo Services - Appellant
Versus
Sky 2C Freight Systems India Pvt. Ltd. and Others - Respondent
Criminal Rev. P. 299 of 2015
Decided On : 23-12-2015
For the Appellants :Rakesh Nautiyal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:C.K. Sharma, Advocate and M.P. Singh, APP.
The main legal point established is that the compounding of offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act, as provided in Section 147, can be considered even at later stages of litigation, and the primary object underlying Section 138 of the Act is to promote the efficacy of bank operations and ensure credibility in transacting business through cheques.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction under Section 138 - Section 147
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque issued for payment of services. The petitioner contested the conviction, claiming he was only liable to pay a lesser amount and that the cheque was filled by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty based on the evidence presented and the lack of a proper defense. The appellate court upheld the conviction, and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the cheque, the petitioner's defense, and the compounding of the offense under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows for the compounding of offenses under the Act. It also referenced relevant Supreme Court judgments on compounding of offenses in cheque bouncing cases.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquitted the petitioner, as the dispute was settled and the compounding of the offense under Section 147 was applicable.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-02/West : Delhi in complaint case No. 6551/1/12 dated 21.11.2013/30.11.2013 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for six months, pay a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainant (respondent No. 1) within 30 days from the date of the sentence as also against the judgment and order passed in Crl. Appeal No. 16/2/14 by the Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West) Delhi dated 07.05.2015 whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the Trial Court has been affirmed and upheld.
2. The respondent No. 1(complainant) who is in the business of providing freight services for import and export of goods to foreign countries was approached by the petitioner for providing services for import and export of goods. On a mutually agreed terms, the petitioner started taking the services to the respondent No. 1(complainant) from March, 2012 to September, 2012. Invoices and bills for the aforesaid period amounting to Rs. 14,89,746/- was raised by the respondent No. 1(complainant). Out of the aforesaid amount, the petitioner is said to have paid Rs. 9,40,600/- till August, 2012 with an assurance that the balance amount shall be paid shortly. On 12.09.2012, a cheque is said to have been issued by the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 5,49,146/- (exhibit CW-1/2). The aforesaid cheque, on presentation in bank, was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the account. A legal notice was sent to the petitioner on 18.10.2012 which was duly received by him.
3. The authorised representative of the respondent No. 1(complainant) got himself examined before the Trial Court as CW-1 and exhibited his affidavit in evidence as Ex.CW-1/A. On the perusal of the complaint and the affidavit of the authorised representative, summons were issued to the petitioner on 17.12.2012.
4. When the substance of accusation was being explained to the petitioner, he is said to have admitted that the cheque in question pertained to bank account mentioned in the name of his proprietorship concern and that he had signed the cheque but the other columns were not filled by him and the spaces were left blank as the aforesaid cheque was a security cheque. However, the petitioner admitted that he owes Rs. 4,25,000/- to the respondent No. 1(complainant). The business relationship between the parties was also admitted.
5. Since the Trial Court was of the opinion that the petitioner failed to raise any proper defence for rebutting the case of the respondent No. 1(complainant), his right to cross-examine the complainant was closed and even his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not recorded. Since there was no defence, according to the Trial Court, available to the petitioner, no opportunity was granted to lead defence evidence. The Trial Court, therefore, as aforesaid, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo SI for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 6 lakhs within 30 days of the passing of the sentence.
6. The Appellate Court took note of the fact that during the trial, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre where the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 4,49,146/- in instalments but he did not keep the aforesaid promise of the petitioner was not kept. The petitioner was thereafter arrested on non bailable warrants of arrest being issued against him.
7. Disbelieving the version of the petitioner, the appeal was dismissed and the Trial Court judgment and order was upheld.
8. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid judgments on the ground that he was only liable to pay Rs. 4,25,000/- and no more and that the subject cheque was signed by him but the contents were filled up by the respondent. It was further urged that the Trial Court adopted a queer approach in recording a verdict of guilt
