Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4242
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN, J.
R.K. Paresh
Versus
M/s. Kothari Textiles Limited, Rep. by its Power of Attorney, J. Kannan
Crl.R.C.No.995 of 2007
Decided on : 15-10-2012
For the Petitioner: No appearance.
For the Respondent: No appearance.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the individual liability of the accused for issuing the cheques.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque Bounce - Section 138 - 138 - Summary: The accused borrowed money and issued two cheques to the complainant, which were returned due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused contested the complaint, arguing lack of statutory notice and improper party in the complaint. The trial court convicted the accused, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. The revision court reduced the sentence and compensation amount.
Fact of the Case:
The accused borrowed money and issued two cheques to the complainant, which were returned due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused contested the complaint, arguing lack of statutory notice and improper party in the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the accused, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. The revision court reduced the sentence and compensation amount.
Issues: Statutory notice, proper party in the complaint
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the accused issued the cheques in his individual capacity, dismissing the argument regarding the notice and the party in the complaint.
Final Decision: The revision court modified the sentence and compensation amount imposed by the lower courts.
The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.995 of 2007, against the judgment made in C.A.No.283 of 2002, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1584 of 1997, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:-
The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant, for purchase of land. In order to discharge part payment of the said debt, the accused gave two cheques dated 30.11.1996 and 30.12.1996, drawn on Canara Bank, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai, each for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment with his bankers, State Bank of India, Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai on 31.12.1996 and 02.01.1997, it were returned with an endorsement of "funds insufficient". The complainant issued a legal notice on 17.01.1997 to the accused and the same was received by the accused on 24.01.1997. In spite of receipt of notice, the accused failed to effect payment on the cheques. Hence, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.
3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the complainant's side, three witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10, viz., Ex.P1-power of attorney, Exs.P2 and P3-cheques, Ex.P4-return memo Ex.P5-debit advice, Ex.P6-copy of lawyer's notice, Ex.P7-acknowledgment card, Ex.P8-power of attorney given to P.W.2, Ex.P9-power of attorney given to P.W.3, Ex.P10-copy of bank account statement of accused. On side of the accused, one witness was examined and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2 viz,. Ex.R1-certificate issued to the accused and Ex.R2-certificate to show that he is proprietor of Aarthi Exports.
4. P.W.1, Kannan had adduced evidence that he is the Secretary in the complainant's firm and that the power of attorney given to him by his firm had been marked as Ex.P2. P.W.1 adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of his evidence had marked exhibits listed as Exs.P1 to P7.
5. P.W.2, Maniraj had adduced evidence that he is the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Nungambakkam and that the power of attorney given to him by the Manager has been marked as Ex.P8. He deposed that the complainant had a current account in their bank and that when Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were presented at their bank for encashment, it was sent to Canara Bank, Shenoy Nagar for collection and that it were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account of accused.
6. P.W.3, Balachandran had adduced evidence that he is the computer maintenance officer of Canara Bank, Shenoy Nagar Branch and that the power of attorney given to him by his bank to adduce evidence had been marked as Ex.P9. P.W.3 deposed that the accused had a current account in their bank and that when Exs.P2 and P3 cheques were presented at their bank for collection, it were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account of accused. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P10, the bank account statement of accused.
7. R.W.1, Ramesh had adduced evidence that he is the proprietor of Aarthi Exports and that the certificate issued to him by cotton textiles board promotion council had been marked as Ex.R1 and that the certificate was presented to him as he was the Manager of the said Aarthi Exports and that a certificate had been issued to him by the Department of Industries and Commerce on account of his being the Manager of the Aarthi Exports (Ex.R2) and that the certificate has been addressed to No.7, Poonamalle High Road, Maduravoyal. R.W.1 deposed that the said cheques Exs.P2 and P3 had not been signed by him and that it
