Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ
Dilip Kumar Kedia - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
Cr. M. P. No. 1315 of 2017
Decided On : 02-07-2018
Negotiable Instruments Act – Sections 138, 118, 139 – Dishonoring of Cheque – Judgment of acquittal – Petitioner has sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in C. P. Case by Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the sole accused/opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Held, Counsel for the appellant has one by one tried to question the findings of learned trial court. – He submits that complaint was filed by the complainant as a Proprietor of the complainant’s Firm. – Findings in this regard are therefore misplaced. – Further the complaint was filed against the accused who represented through the Proprietorship Firm. – The complainant and the accused were not Directors of any Company rather Proprietor of their own Firm. – The findings thereto are therefore susceptible to challenge. – He further submits that learned trial court has committed an error in holding that complainant had failed to establish the existence of legally enforceable debt on account of non-filing of Income Tax/Sales Tax return. – It also erroneously held that the presumption attached to Negotiable Instrument was successfully rebutted by the accused. – It also fell in error while believing the story of the defence that the cheque was as security. – As such there are various errors of law and facts on which the findings are vulnerable to be challenged in Appeal. – Therefore, special leave to appeal may be granted. – Court have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. – Court have also taken note of the findings of fact arrived at by learned trial court on the basis of evidence as contained in the Lower Court Records. – Court is of the view that learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to make out sufficient grounds to grant special leave to appeal against the findings of learned trial court before the appellate court. – Court however refrain from making any observations on the merits of the findings as it may unfairly prejudice the case of the parties before the appellate court. – Petition Allowed
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Accused/opposite party no. 2 has not entered appearance despite valid service of notice and sufficient time granted thereafter also.
2. Petitioner has sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 1st April, 2017 passed in C. P. Case No. 3150 of 2013/Tr. No. 1711 of 2017 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby the sole accused/opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. As per the case of the complainant, who claims to be the Proprietor of Tirupati Ceramics & Monolothic Industries situated at Rajpura, P. S.- Nirsa, District-Dhanbad, the accused used to purchase castable and mattress from the complainant and paid the cost of the same through various Cheques. He supplied these items worth Rs. 13,39,240/- by various Invoices, which were paid through five Cheques in favour of Firm bearing Cheque nos. 000801 and 00082 dated 20.07.2013, 000803 and 000804 dated 20.08.2013 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each and the Cheque no. 124458 dated 11.10.2013 for a sum of Rs. 7 lacs, total amount of Rs. 9 lacks. Complainant deposited the Cheque bearing nos. 000803 and 000804 dated 20.08.2013 in his account at United Bank of India on 15.10.2013 and was returned vide Memo dated 01.11.2013 with the information, due to “Stop Payment”. Complainant received the returned memo on the same date. Further Cheque No. 000801 and 000802 dated 20.07.2013 also bounced on its presentation on the same ground and were returned vide memo dated 24.10.2013. Cheque no. 124458 for a sum of Rs. 7 lacs also bounced on account of “Insufficient Fund” which was communicated through Memo dated 01.11.2013. Complainant issued a legal notice on 09.11.2013 demanding the payment of Rs. 9 lacs within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Accused received the notice on 12.11.2013 but did not clear the cheque amount. Complaint was filed thereafter.
4. After enquiry and statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation, accused was summoned to face trial by order dated 14.03.2014 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. He pleaded not guilty on the substance of accusation being explained to him on 18.09.2014 and claimed to be tried.
5. Complainant examined himself as C.W.-1 and filed the following documents:
“Exhibit 1 is the complaint petition
Exhibit 2, 2/1, 2/3 are cheque numbers 000801, 00082, 000803, 000804 and 124458 respectively
Exhibit 3/1, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3 and 3/4 are cheque return memoes
Exhibit 4 is the signature of the Advocate Sri Udai Shankar Singh on the legal notice dated 09.11.13
Exhibit 5 is the registry slip
Exhibit 6, 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, 6/5, 6/6 and 6/7 are vouchers”
6. Defence examined two witnesses, namely, Kalyan Kumar Chakrabory (D.W.-1) and Kalipada Das (D.W.-2). Defence also exhibited the following documents:
“Exhibit A, A/1, A/2, A/3, A/4, A/5, A/6, A/7, A/8 and A/9; cash deposit vouchers
Exhibit B, B/1, B/2, B/3, B/4, B/5, B/6 and B/7; statements of accounts of M/s Sonali International.”
7. Complainant supported his case, in his examination-in-chief, and referred to five cheques issued by the accused for the amounts noted above. He also deposed about the dishonor of cheques and intimation through return memo which along with other documents were exhibited as 1, 2 series 3 series, 4, 5 and 6 series. In his cross-examination, he filed invoice tax memo in the name of Sonali International. The signature of the accused was not on the invoice. Cheque nos. 000801, 000802, 000803 and 000804 bore the stamp of Sonali International. On the legal notice dated 09.11.2013 neither his signature nor the seal of the company were there. He did not remember the date of filing of this case. A reply to the legal notice was filed in the Court. But he again stated that it was not filed. He did not file the documents of registration of Firm. Learned trial court observed that the complainant was on business terms with Sonali I
SupremeToday
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
