Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, J.
P.S. Sajimon – Appellant
Versus
Regency Ceramics Limited and Ors. – Respondents
Crl. R.P. Nos. 2761, 2795, 2783, 2787, 2801, 2782, 2788, 2781, 2808, 2784, 2809 and 2802 of 2008
Decided On : 01.12.2017
Cheque Bounce - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the vital aspects of the matter in favor of the petitioner, including the lack of clear and precise averments in the statutory demand notices, the discrepancy in the addressee of the notices and the accused's identity, and the absence of crucial material particulars about the alleged transactions in the complaints. The court highlighted the legal principles related to the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the necessity of disclosing all relevant and crucial material particulars in a complaint, and the right of the accused to a fair trial. These aspects influenced the court's decision to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in 12 separate complaints for dishonored cheques. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the courts below omitted to consider vital aspects in his favor, including discrepancies in the statutory demand notices and lack of crucial material particulars in the complaints.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned judgments were vitiated by grave illegalities and perversity, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of acquittal due to the lack of clear and precise averments in the statutory demand notices, discrepancies in the addressee of the notices and the accused's identity, and the absence of crucial material particulars about the alleged transactions in the complaints.
Issues: The issues included the lack of clear and precise averments in the statutory demand notices, discrepancies in the addressee of the notices and the accused's identity, and the absence of crucial material particulars about the alleged transactions in the complaints.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal principles related to the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the necessity of disclosing all relevant and crucial material particulars in a complaint, and the right of the accused to a fair trial.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner in all 12 complaints, acquitting the accused of the offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in all 12 complaints.
Alexander Thomas, J.
1. These 12 Revision Petitions arise out of the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused in 12 separate complaints which were jointly tried. The parties in the 12 complaints are the same. The trial court, by the common judgment rendered on 24.03.2017, has convicted the petitioner in all the 12 complaints and has sentenced him to undergo three months' simple imprisonment in each of the cases and has ordered to pay fine of an amount which is equal to the dishonoured cheque amounts covered in each of these complaints, with a default sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment.
2. The petitioner had preferred 12 separate criminal appeals before the appellate Sessions Court concerned. The appellate court, has per the common judgment rendered on 16.05.2008, has confirmed the conviction imposed on the petitioner in all the 12 complaints, but has reduced the substantive sentence to one month's simple imprisonment in each of the cases and has confirmed the direction to pay fine amount but the default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment imposed by the trial court has been enhanced to three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by this verdict of the court below, the petitioner has preferred these 12 separate Revision Petitions which had been heard together.
3. The details of these 12 Revision Petitions including the cheque numbers and dates, cheque amounts, statutory demand notice etc are given in a tabulated manner as noted below :
Serial No.
Case Nos.
Cheque Nos.
Exhibit Nos.
Cheque amount Rs.
Total Rs.
Notice Nos.
1.
S.T.No. 221/2004
076506
P-1
1,00,000/-
3,00,000/-
P-9
Crl. Appeal No. 293/2007
076504
P-2
1,00,000/-
Crl.R.P. No. 2761/2008
076507
P-3
1,00,000/-
2.
S.T.No.222/2004
076505
P-12
1,00,000/-
3,00,000/-
P-27
Crl. Appeal No.294/2007
076501
P-13
1,00,000/-
Crl.R.P. No. 2795/2008
076502
P-14
1,00,000/-
3.
S.T.No. 223/2004
076503
P-22
1,00,000/-
3,00,000/-
P-30
Crl. Appeal No. 295/2007
076508
P-23
1,00,000/-
Crl.R.P. No. 2783/2008
076529
P-24
1,00,000/-
4.
S.T.No. 224/2004
076528
P-31
1,00,000/-
3,00,000/-
P-39
Crl. Appeal No. 296/2007
076527
P-32
1,00,000/-
Crl.R.P. No. 2787/2008
076526
P-33
1,00,000/-
5.
S.T.No. 225/2004
076524
P-40
1,00,000/-
2,50,000
P-47
Crl. Appeal No. 297/2007
076525
P-41
1,00,000/-
Crl.R.P. No. 2801/2008
076531
P-42
50,000
6.
S.T.No. 226/2004
076523
P-48
1,00,000/-
3,00,000/-
P-56
Crl. Appeal No. 298/2007
076522
P-49
1,00,000/-
Crl.R.P. No. 2782/2008
076521
P-50
1,00,000/-
7.
S.T.No. 227/2004
076517
P-57
1,00,000/-
3,00,000/-
P-64
Crl. Appeal No.299/2007
076518
P-58
1,00,000/-
Crl.R.P. No. 2788/2008
076519
P-59
1,00,000/-
8.
S.T.No. 228/2004
076520
P-65
1,00,000/-
3,00,000/-
P-73
Crl. Appeal No. 300/2007
076515
P-66
1,00,000/-
Crl.R.P. No. 2781/2008
076516
P-67
1,00,000/-
9.
S.T.No. 229/2004
076537
P-74
37,425/-
2,37,425/-
P-82
Crl. Appeal No. 301/2007
076513
P-75
1,00,000/-
Crl.R.P. No. 2808/2008
070614
P-76
1,00,000/-
10
S.T.No. 230/2004
076511
P-83
1,00,000/-
3,00,000/-
P-92
Crl. Appeal No. 302/2007
076512
P-84
1,00,000/-
Crl.R.P. No. 2784/2008
076572
P-85
1,00,000/-
11.
S.T.No.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
