Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Kanaram - Petitioner
Versus
S. Hariram - Respondent
Crl.R.C. Nos. 819 to 822 of 2013
Decided On : 24-01-2020
For the Petitioner:R. Sankarappan, Advocate
For the Respondent:M. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of pleading the existence of the debt and the need for the complainant to prove the debt, as well as the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
Headnote:
Cheque Dishonour - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - 138, 139, 118 - The court discussed the statutory demand notices, complaints, and proof affidavits in the context of the existence of a legally enforceable debt, issuance of cheques, dishonour of cheques, and failure to make payment after receipt of statutory demand notice. The court emphasized the importance of pleading the existence of the debt and the need for the complainant to prove the debt. The court also highlighted the accused's inconsistent defense and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
Fact of the Case:
The accused issued four dishonoured cheques to the complainant, leading to separate prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was convicted and sentenced in each case. The accused filed criminal revisions seeking to set aside the judgments and orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the statutory demand notices, complaints, and proof affidavits to determine the existence of a legally enforceable debt, issuance of cheques, dishonour of cheques, and failure to make payment after receipt of statutory demand notice. The court found inconsistencies in the complainant's case and the accused's defense. The court emphasized the importance of pleading the existence of the debt and the need for the complainant to prove the debt. The court also highlighted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and the accused's inconsistent defense.
Issues: The issues revolved around the existence of a legally enforceable debt, the issuance and dishonour of cheques, and the failure to make payment after receipt of statutory demand notice. The court also addressed the complainant's pleadings and the accused's defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of pleading the existence of the debt and the need for the complainant to prove the debt. The court also highlighted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and the accused's inconsistent defense.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused in all four cases, allowing the criminal revisions and ordering the refund of any deposited amount and the discharge of any executed bail bond.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in Crl.R.C. No.819 of 2013: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 19.04.2013 passed by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (FTC 1) in Crl.A. No.101 of 2012 confirming the judgment and order dated 22.05.2012 passed in C.C. No.3543 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
Crl.R.C. No.820 of 2013: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 19.04.2013 passed by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (FTC 1) in Crl.A. No.102 of 2012 confirming the judgment and order dated 22.05.2012 passed in C.C. No.4837 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
Crl.R.C. No.821 of 2013: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 19.04.2013 passed by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (FTC 1) in Crl.A. No.103 of 2012 confirming the judgment and order dated 22.05.2012 passed in C.C. No.5689 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
Crl.R.C. No.822 of 2013: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 19.04.2013 passed by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (FTC 1) in Crl.A. No.100 of 2012 confirming the judgment and order dated 22.05.2012 passed in C.C. No.2798 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.)
1. In view of commonality of issue involved, these criminal revisions are considered and decided by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as accused and complainant respectively.
3. In respect of four dishonoured cheques that were allegedly issued by the accused on four different dates, to the complainant, four prosecutions, viz., C.C. Nos.2798, 3543, 4837 and 5689 of 2009 were initiated by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for brevity “the NI Act”) before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and in all the four cases, separate judgments and orders were passed on 22.05.2012 convicting the accused and sentencing him to six months simple imprisonment in each case and to pay the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant.
4. The appeals preferred there against by the accused were dismissed by the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, vide separate judgments and orders dated 19.04.2013, aggrieved by which, the accused has preferred the instant four criminal revisions.
5. Heard Mr. R. Sankarappan, learned counsel for the accused and Mr.M. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant.
6. It is trite that while exercising revisional jurisdiction in a case involving concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below, the High Court cannot act as a second appellate Court [See State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others, etc. [(2004) 7 SCC 659]] Very recently, in Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 197], the Supreme Court has held as under:
“17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH [Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457], it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. ....”
(emphasis supplied)
7. Now, coming to the case at hand, what is the case of the complainant?
7.1 In a case under Section 138 of the NI Act, the case of the complainant will unfold in the statutory demand notice itself. In this case, the complainant has issued four statutory demand notices, of course, on four
