Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
M/s. Sri Maya Trading & Trading Solutions India (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
D.Suresh – Respondent
Crl.R.C. Nos. 438 to 442 of 2017
Decided on : 10-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr.N.Vignesh, Mr.L.Baskaran
The main legal point established is the significance of the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden on the accused to dislodge it with evidence.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction under Section 138 - [CRIMINAL REVISION CASES] - [Negotiable Instruments Act] - [Section 138] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the liability of the accused under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption arising from the issuance of cheques, and the failure of the accused to discharge their liability as per the agreement. The court emphasized the importance of the statutory presumption and the lack of evidence to dislodge it, leading to the confirmation of the petitioners' conviction and sentence.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for failing to honor cheques issued in discharge of a liability. The complainants had enrolled individuals for training under the petitioner-company, collected fees, and handed over the amounts to the accused company. The accused failed to provide the promised training and issued cheques that were subsequently dishonored.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to discharge their liability as per the agreement and did not provide evidence to rebut the statutory presumption arising from the issuance of cheques. The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of liability by the petitioners, the validity of the agreement, and the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the failure of the accused to dislodge it. The lack of evidence to support the petitioners' defense led to the confirmation of their conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision cases were dismissed, and the trial Court was directed to issue a warrant for the petitioners' arrest to ensure they undergo the sentence.
ORDER :
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Cases filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment and sentence dated 24.01.2017 made in C.A.Nos.106, 105, 104, 103 & 102 of 2015, respectively, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and confirming the judgment and sentence dated 13.04.2015 made in C.C.Nos.324, 323, 322, 321 & 320 of 2013, respectively, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-II, Coimbatore.
These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed to set aside the judgment and sentence dated 24.01.2017 made in C.A.Nos.106, 105, 104, 103 & 102 of 2015, respectively, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and sentence dated 13.04.2015 made in C.C.Nos.324, 323, 322, 321 & 320 of 2013, respectively, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-II, Coimbatore.
2. The petitioners/accused convicted by the Courts below for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the complaint of the respondent/complainants. The petitioners were convicted in C.C.Nos.324, 323, 322, 321 & 320 of 2013, respectively, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-II, Coimbatore by judgment dated 13.04.2015 sentencing the first petitioner-company to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, the second petitioner/Chairman of A1 company to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Second petitioner/A-2 is sentenced to undergo 10 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed C.A.Nos.106, 105, 104, 103 & 102 of 2015, respectively, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge by judgment dated 24.01.2017, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court, against which, the present petitions have been filed.
3. For the sake of clarity and brevity, the petitioners and respondents are referred to as they are referred as per their rank before the trial Court.
4. The primary ground on which the petitioners assail is that the first respondent-complainants admitted that they enrolled for training under the petitioner-company for On-line Trading business and they were placed as team leader for training group. The complainants canvassed and enrolled several persons. As regards Crl.R.C.No.438 of 2017 is concerned, the complainant got enrolled 64 persons for training program to be conducted by the petitioner-company. Similarly, in Crl.R.C.No.439 of 2017, the complainant got enrolled 58 persons, in Crl.R.C.No.440 of 2017, the complainant got enrolled 150 persons, in Crl.R.C.No.441 of 2017, the complainant got enrolled 130 persons, in Crl.R.C.No.442 of 2017, the complainant got enrolled 124 persons and they collected a sum of Rs.5,300/- from each persons as fee for training. The petitioners/accused unable to provide any training, agreed to return back the amounts collected. Thereafter, there was an agreement entered between the petitioners and the first respondent and one another person, namely, Mahesh Kumar. The said Mahesh Kumar has not filed any case.
5. The brief facts of the case is that the first petitioner is a private limited company giving training in multilevel marketing for Trading in commodities, the second petitioner is the Chairman of the company. The company was in the business for five years. In order to give on-line trading training, the first respondent/complainant joined A1-company and paid Rs.5,300/- during the year 2012. The Chairman of the accused-company nominated the first respondent/complainant as leader to training groups. The first respondent/complainants were forced to canvas, bring in other persons and they collected 526 persons in total and made them to pay the money for training. Each one of them paid Rs.5,300/-. The complainants as group leaders collected Rs.3,50,000/- in
