Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
M/s. K.J. Bastian
Versus
M/s. Electro Wire Link Industries & Another
Crl.A.No.351 of 1999
Decided On : 03-02-2007
Negotiable Instrument Act - Section 138 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which deals with the punishment for dishonour of cheques. The court also referred to the explanations and legal principles related to the issuance of cheques for discharge of debt or liability, and the presumption and burden of proof in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused for dishonour of a cheque. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and found that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was drawn to discharge a debt due to the complainant in the course of business. The court also discussed discrepancies in the evidence and upheld the trial court's decision to acquit the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant had proved that the dishonoured cheque was drawn to discharge a debt or liability due to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the complainant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability at the time of the cheque's issuance. It also discussed the presumption and burden of proof under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial court that acquitted the accused.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in C.C.No.5095/1997 on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. The complainant is the appellant herein.
2. The brief facts in the complaint preferred by the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, are as follows:-
In connection with the purchase of wires from the complainant-company the accused had drawn a cheque for Rs.2,00,489/-on 312. 1996. When the cheque was presented in the bank on 06.06.1997, the same was retuned with an endorsement that "it exceeds the arrangements". Hence the complainant has issued a notice to the accused on 18.06.1997, but the accused has not chosen to send any reply. Hence the complaint.
3. After taking the sworn statement of the complainant, the complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the summons were issued to the accused for appearance. On appearance, the copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused and when the offence was explained to the accused they pleaded not guilty. On the side of the complainant, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On the side of the accused no oral evidence was let in, but Ex.D.1 to D.4 were marked.
4. P.W.1 in is evidence would depose that he is working in the complainant-company as a manager and the complainant-company is indulged in hardware business and the accused are having transaction in purchasing goods from the complainant-company from the year 1993 and that he was having a current account for the transactions and that the accused had drawn a cheque for Rs.2,00,489/-dated 312. 1996 and gave it to the complainant towards the discharge of the debt. When the said cheque was presented with the bank on 6. 1997 the said cheque was returned with an endorsement "Exceeds Arrangements". Ex.P.1 is the returned cheque. Ex.P.2 & P.3 are the intimation memo received from the bank regarding the return of the cheque. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the notice dated 16. 1997 issued to the accused. Ex.P.6 & P.7 are the acknowledgments. Ex.P.7 is the authorization letter.
5. P.W.2 is an Accountant in the Union Bank, Sembuthas Branch, Chennai, and that he is working in the current account department. P.W.2 would depose that the accused is having a current account and also availed cash credit facility and that Ex.P.1-Cheque came to the said Branch of the Bank on 6. 1997 and since there was no sufficient funds in the drawers account the said cheque was returned with an endorsement "Exceeds the Arrangements". Ex.P.2 is the intimation of the bank of his branch. Ex.P.8 is the statement of accounts maintained in the bank.
6. P.W.4 is the cashier of the complainant-bank. She would depose that the accused had purchased steel wires from the complainant-company and for that purpose the accused have maintained an account with the complainant. Ex.P.9 is the invoice dated 110. 1995 for a sum of Rs.79,359/-, Ex.P.10 is the invoice dated 14. 1995 for a sum of Rs.21,498/-, Ex.P.11 is the invoice dated 25. 1995 for a sum of Rs.20,924/-, Ex.P.12 is the invoice dated 02.03.1996 for a sum of Rs.1,51,100/-, Ex.P.13 is the invoice dated 111. 1995 for a sum of Rs.60,441/-, Ex.P.14 is the invoice dated 14. 1996 for a sum of Rs.37,190/-, Ex.P.15 is the invoice dated 5. 1996 for a sum of Rs.1,40,344/-.
7. When incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, the accused denied his complicity with the crime. On the side of the accused no oral evidence was let in. Ex.D.1 to D.4 were marked. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act has not been proved against the accused and consequently dismissed the complaint thereby acquitting the accused, which necessitated the complainant to prefer this appeal.
8. Now the point for determination in this appea
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
