Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4420
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN, J.
N. Balraj
Versus
M. Ponnusamy
Crl. R.C. No. 1041 of 2007
Decided on : 31-10-2012
For the Petitioner:N. Damodaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent: No Appearance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 138 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in determining the liability for dishonour of a cheque and the presumption of discharge of debt.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the offence of dishonour of cheque. The court also referred to Section 139, which pertains to the presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions related to the issuance of cheques, presumption of discharge of debt, and the evidence required to displace the presumption.
Fact of the Case:
The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000 from the complainant and issued a cheque to discharge the debt. The cheque was returned unpaid, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused denied receiving the loan and challenged the maintainability of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the evidence presented by the complainant. The court held that the accused failed to prove his innocence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay compensation.
Issues: The key issues included the validity of the cheque issuance, the presumption of discharge of debt under Section 139, and the maintainability of the complaint based on the statutory notice period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented by the complainant, the provisions of Section 138 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the failure of the accused to produce relevant documents and witnesses to support his defense.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision, reducing the imprisonment period and modifying the compensation amount. The conviction and judgment were modified based on the discretionary power vested with the court.
1. The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1041 of 2007, against the judgment made in C.A.No.155 of 2005, on the file of Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.459 of 2000, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.
2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:-
The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from the complainant on 05.08.1998 and executed a promissory note to this effect. In order to discharge the said debt, the accused had issued a cheque dated 18.09.2000, drawn on UCO Bank, Udagamandalam Branch, Nilgiris District, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant deposited the said cheque for encashment with his bankers, viz, Corporation Bank, Mettupalayam Branch, on 19.09.2000, it was returned unpaid with an endorsement of "account closed" on 29.09.2000. The complainant sent a lawyer's notice to the accused on 12.10.2000, which was received by the accused on 16.10.2000. The accused sent a reply notice dated 21.10.2000 making false allegations. The complainant sent a rejoinder on 08.11.2000 which was received by the accused on 09.11.2000. In spite of receipt of notice, the accused did not pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.
3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the complainant's side, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12, viz., Ex.P1-promissory note dated 05.08.1998, Ex.P2-cheque dated 18.09.2000 for Rs.5,00,000/-, Ex.P3-deposit receipt for cheque dated 19.09.2000, Ex.P4-return memo dated 21.09.2000, Ex.P5-debit advice dated 29.09.2000, Exs.P6 and P7-copy of lawyer's notice dated 12.10.2000 and 13.10.2000, Exs.P8 and P9-acknowledgment cards, Ex.P10-reply notice dated 21.10.2000, Ex.P11-rejoinder letter of complainant dated 08.11.2000, Ex.P12-acknowledgment card. On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined and one document was marked as Ex.R1, viz., letter written by R.W.2.
4. P.W.1, the complainant had adduced evidence that on 05.08.1998, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from him as loan and executed a promissory note to this effect (Ex.P1). Subsequently, the accused had neither paid any amount towards principal or interest. On 17.09.2000, the accused had issued a cheque dated 18.09.2000 for Rs.5,00,000/-, agreeing to pay the interest later. P.W.1 deposed that he deposited the said cheque (Ex.P2) for encashment with his bankers, viz, Corporation Bank, Mettupalayam Branch on 19.09.2000. The deposit challan issued by bank was marked as Ex.P3. The said cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement of "account closed" on 29.09.2000 through return memo marked as Ex.P4. The debit advice issued by his bankers was marked as Ex.P5. P.W.1 deposed that he sent a lawyer's notice to the accused on 12.10.2000 (Ex.P6). As there was a typing error in the said notice and as the date of return of cheque was mentioned incorrectly as 21.09.2000 instead of 29.09.2000, he had sent another rectified lawyer's notice on 13.10.2007 (Ex.P7). The accused received both the notices on 16.10.2000 as per acknowledgment cards marked as Exs.P8 and P9. P.W.1 deposed that the accused sent a reply notice on 21.10.2000 (Ex.P10), for which, the complainant had sent a rejoinder on 08.11.2001to the counsel of accused and accused (Ex.P11). The accused received the rejoinder as per acknowledgment cards marked as Exs.P12 and P13. In spite of notice, the accused did not pay the cheque amount.
5. R.W.1. had adduced evidence denying the allegations of the complainant that he had received a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and executed a promissory note and issued a cheque on 18.09.2000. R.W
