Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 92856
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/S.SRI MAYA TRADING & TRADING – Appellant
Versus
D.SURESH, – Respondent
CRL RC/438/2017
The presumption of liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused, but the accused must provide evidence to support their defense.
Headnote:
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - SECTION 138 - DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE - PRESUMPTION OF LIABILITY - REBUTTAL - AGREEMENT - LIABILITY ADMITTED - NO DISCHARGE OF LIABILITY - CONVICTION UPHELD
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a company and its chairman, were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring cheques issued to the complainants, who were team leaders for the company. The complainants had collected money from various persons for training programs offered by the company, but the company failed to provide any training and agreed to repay the amounts collected. The petitioners issued cheques to the complainants, but the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had not denied their signatures on the cheques or the issuance of the cheques. The court also found that the petitioners had admitted their liability in an agreement, wherein they acknowledged receiving money from the complainants and agreed to repay the amounts. The court further found that the petitioners had failed to discharge their liability and had not provided any evidence to rebut the presumption of liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were liable to pay the complainants the full amount collected from various persons, even though the complainants had not produced evidence of authorization from each individual person.2. Whether the petitioners had discharged their liability under the agreement.3. Whether the petitioners had rebutted the presumption of liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were liable to pay the complainants the full amount collected from various persons, as the complainants were responsible for repaying the team members and the petitioners had admitted their liability in the agreement.2. The court held that the petitioners had not discharged their liability under the agreement, as they had not provided any evidence to show that they had repaid the amounts to the complainants or to the individual persons who had paid the money.3. The court held that the petitioners had not rebutted the presumption of liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as they had not provided any evidence to show that the cheques were issued without consideration or that they had a valid defense to the dishonour of the cheques.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' revision petitions and upheld their conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Crl.R.C.Nos.438 to 442 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.
R . C .No
s . 438 to 442
of 201
7
1.M/s.Sri Maya Trading &
Trading Solutions India (P) Ltd.,
5/8-N, B.D.O. Colony Street, Sulur,
Coimbatore - 641 402.
2.R.Prabakaran,
Chairman of M/s.Sri Maya Trading &
Trading Solutions India (P) Ltd.,
14/33-B, Pappampatty Main Road,
Pallapalayam Post, Sulur,
Coimbatore - 641 403.
... Petitioners/Accused in
all Crl.R.Cs.
Versus
1. D.Suresh
... 1
st Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.438 of 2017
1. M.Rajarathinam
... 1
st Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.439 of 2017
1. M.Devaraj
... 1
st Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.440 of 2017
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.438 to 442 of 2017
1. R.Marusamy
... 1
st Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.441 of 2017
1. G.Venkatachalam
... 1
st Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.442 of 2017
2.State rep. by Public Prosecutor,
District Court Campus,
Coimbatore.
... 2
nd Respondent in
all Crl.R.Cs.
COMMON 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.
In all Crl.R.Cs.
For Petitioners
: Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
For Respondent-1
: Mr.N.Vignesh
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent-2
: Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
COMMON ORDER
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,
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.438 to 442 of 2017
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
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.438 to 442 of 2017
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
complain
