Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3958
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA
Krishna Reddy
Versus
P.V.R.S. Mani Kumar
Crl. A. No. 294 of 2000 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 3628 of 2000, 9203 of 2001 & 12098 of 2002
Decided On :09-03-2010
For the Appellant :A.N. Thambidurai, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C. Rajan & V.K. Sathiamurthy, Advocats.
The notice issued by the appellant-complainant was valid under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as the notice contained the details of the cheques, the amount claimed, and the date of issuance of the cheques.
Headnote:
The Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant-complainant is allowed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the first appellate Court is set aside. The conviction passed by the trial Court on the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is confirmed. The sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced from one year simple imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment. The fine amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the trial Court is confirmed. Besides that, the respondent-accused is directed to pay Rs.13,85,920/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty-five thousand nine hundred and twenty only) as compensation to the appellant-complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-complainant filed a private complaint stating that the respondent-accused had borrowed money from him and after some time, the respondent-accused issued two cheques, one dated 31.3.1998 for Rs.6,60,000/- and another dated 31.3.1998 for Rs.7,25,920/-, both drawn on Syndicate Bank, Perambur, Chennai. The first cheque represented the principal amount and the second cheque represented the interest upto 31.3.1998. The appellant-complainant deposited the said cheques on 31.3.1998. Both the cheques were dishonoured by the Bank on 2.4.1998, stating "insufficient funds". The appellant-complainant issued lawyers notice dated 6.4.198 and the appellant-complainant received reply notice dated 17.4.1998 and then, the appellant issued rejoinder on 21.4.1998 and filed the complaint in accordance with law, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act).
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent-accused had issued the cheques in question and that there was a subsisting liability on the part of the respondent-accused on the date of issuance of the cheques. The Court also found that the notice issued by the appellant-complainant was valid under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the cheques in question were issued by the respondent-accused. 2. Whether there was a subsisting liability on the part of the respondent-accused on the date of issuance of the cheques. 3. Whether the notice issued by the appellant-complainant was valid under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the cheques in question were issued by the respondent-accused, as the respondent-accused had admitted the issuance of the cheques and the signatures in the cheques were also admitted by the respondent-accused. 2. The Court held that there was a subsisting liability on the part of the respondent-accused on the date of issuance of the cheques, as the appellant-complainant had proved that the cheques in question were issued for the discharge of the loan obtained by the respondent-accused under Ex.C-1 promissory note. 3. The Court held that the notice issued by the appellant-complainant was valid under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as the notice contained the details of the cheques, the amount claimed, and the date of issuance of the cheques.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant-complainant is allowed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the first appellate Court is set aside. The conviction passed by the trial Court on the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is confirmed. The sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced from one year simple imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment. The fine amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the trial Court is confirmed. Besides that, the respondent-accused is directed to pay Rs.13,85,920/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty-five thousand nine hundred and twenty only) as compensation to the appellant-complainant.
1. The Criminal Appeal is taken up for disposal, on remand from the Supreme Court, by order dated 29.3.2007 in Crl.A.Nos.597 to 599 of 2003 and 775 of 2003, whereby, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
"Without going into the merit of the case and in view of the fact that now new materials are available on record, we think it fit and proper to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant."
2. The Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 6.12.1999 in Crl.A.No.127 of 1999 on the file of III Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, against the judgment dated 26.4.1999 in C.C.No.3316 of 1998 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
3. The appellant as complainant, has filed a private complaint stating that the respondent-accused has borrowed money from him and after some time, the respondent-accused issued two cheques, one dated 31.3.1998 for Rs.6,60,000/-and another dated 31.3.1998 for Rs.7,25,920/-, both drawn on Syndicate Bank, Perambur, Chennai. The first cheque represented the principal amount and the second cheque represented the interest upto 31.3.1998. The appellant-complainant deposited the said cheques on 31.3.1998. Both the cheques were dishonoured by the Bank on 2.4.1998, stating "insufficient funds". The appellant-complainant issued lawyers notice dated 6.4.198 and the appellant-complainant received reply notice dated 17.4.1998 and then, the appellant issued rejoinder on 21.4.1998 and filed the complaint in accordance with law, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act).
4. The trial Court, after taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, issued summons to the respondent-accused and after questioning the accused, examining P.Ws.1 to 3 and D.W.1 and marking Exs.P-1 to P-16 and Ex.D-1 to D-3, by judgment dated 26.4.1999, convicted the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.13,87,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and out of the fine amount, the trial Court directed the complainant to pay Rs.13,86,000/- as compensation.
5. Against the said judgment of the trial Court, the respondent-accused preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.127 of 1999, and the first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-accused and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and also directed to refund the fine amount, if paid.
6. Against the said judgment of the first appellate Court, the appellant-complaint has filed the present appeal Crl.A.No.294 of 2000 before this Court, and this Court, by judgment dated 13.12.2002, allowed the appeal, by reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment to three months and also reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.6,60,000/-, and deleted the sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/-.
7. Against the said judgment dated 13.12.2002 passed by this Court, the parties preferred appeals before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, by judgment dated 29.3.2007 in Crl.A.Nos.597 to 599 of 2003 and 775 of 2003, remanded the case as indicated above and the appeal is now heard afresh.
8. On remand from the Supreme Court, now this Court has to decide as to whether the respondent-accused is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
9. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the only dispute to be decided is as to whether on the date of issuance of the cheques in question, there is any subsisting liability on the part of the respondent-accused.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant would contend that the handing over of the cheques in question, has been admitted by the respon
