Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78027

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
K.K.D.Pandian - Appellant
Vs.
S.Tamilselvi - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD).No.111 of 2021
Decided On : 27-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel for M/s.Gandhi Associates
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu

The legality of a transaction affects enforceability; payments for illegal purposes cannot be legally recovered even if a cheque is issued.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 23 and 65 - Appeal against acquittal for cheque dishonor - The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding that the underlying transaction was illegal and not legally enforceable, as the payment was made for obtaining a bus permit illegally. Court referenced precedents that established a debtor cannot benefit from an illegal transaction. Court determined dishonor alone does not constitute guilt under Section 138 unless other conditions are met. (Paras 10-30)

(B) Appellate Review - The Court ruled that findings of fact by the Trial Court can only be overturned if they are perverse or devoid of evidence - In this instance, the Trial Court's conclusion that the appellant's claim was based on an illegal contract was supported by evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. complaint regarding cheating in obtaining bus permit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. acquittal and grounds for appeal raised. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. judicial interpretations regarding enforceability of illegal contracts. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. consequences of illegal agreements on legal actions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. evidence evaluation and burden of proof. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. involvement of the complainant's responsibility in illegal transactions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. conclusion dismissing the appeal. (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

G.ILANGOVAN, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the Judgment dated 10.01.2020 made in S.T.C.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (FTC) at Theni.

2.The complainant filed a complaint with the following averments:

The accused promised the complainant to get permit for running bus between Yenam and Rajamundry. He demanded Rs.1,10,00,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.40,00,000/- on 08.01.2011 to the accused and her husband and second installment of Rs.25,00,000/- was given on 15.01.2011. The accused involved Ex-Chief Minister of Pondicherry stating that unless the balance amount is paid permit cannot be issued. So the third installment of Rs.45,00,000/- was also given. In spite of receipt of the money, the accused was evading. The above said act of the accused was informed to the then Chief Minister of Pondicherry through letter. In the meantime, there was change of Government in Pondicherry. The accused were hiding. Lastly in the year 2016 June month, they were found. At that time they promised to return Rs.1,05,00,000/-. Rs.10,00,000/- was paid in cash. Through banking transaction Rs.5,00,000/- was paid. For the balance amount the accused issued three cheques bearing Nos.179235, 179236 & 179237, dated 01.07.2016, 07.07.2016 & 15.07.2016 drawn on Indian Bank, Pondicherry and requested the complainant not to take criminal action. Those cheques were received by the complainant on 12.04.2016. They promised to honour the cheque on presentation for payment.

3.The complainant presented the cheque on 26.08.2016, came to be returned on 29.08.2016 due to insufficient fund. Complaint was given to the District Superintendent of Police, on 12.09.2016. On knowing about the complaint, the accused promised the complainant to honour the cheque for Rs.40,00,000/- and asked to present the same for payment on 13.10.2016. Believing the words. the complainant presented the cheque bearing No. 179237 on 13.10.2016. Again it came to be returned due to insufficient funds. At that time, the complainant came to know that the accused are indulging in cheating. So he filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18586 of 2016 seeking direction to the Inspector of Police, Theni, to enquire the complaint. Direction was issued to enquire the complaint. Later the accused and her husband filed petition seeking anticipatory bail. The status report was filed by the Inspector of Police, in pursuance of the complaint given by the complainant. During the course of investigation by the Inspector of Police, it was concluded that the accused did not intend to cheat the complainant, since he has issued the cheques. Later after completing the statutory formalities, he filed the present complaint.

4.The trial Court at the conclusion of the trial process by the Judgment dated 10.01.2020, found the accused not guilty and acquitted him. Against which, this appeal is preferred.

5.Heard both sides.

6.A short point was raised before the trial court to the effect that whether out of an illegal act any prosecution will lie under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The reason being that even as per the admitted case of the complainant the amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- was given or paid by the complainant for the purpose of getting bus permit between Yenam and Rajamundry. So this is nothing but, an illegal activity, which is against the public policy. Apart from that other grounds