2017 (2) TMI 1298 - HC - Indian Laws

Revision application - case of applicant is that neither in the statutory notice nor in the complaint or in the chief examination of the complainant before the trial Court, the receipt sums of ₹ 1 lakh on 23.01.2009 and ₹ 5,00,000/- on 05.03.2009 had been informed - Held that - Courts below erroneously have dealt with the issue by informing that even if the payments of ₹ 6,00,000/- is taken into account, the amounts reflected in the cheque will still be owing from the petitioner. The concern of the Court is whether the complainant has approached it with unclean hands. When the answer is in the affirmative, the complainant would suffer the dismissal of his complaint - revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner convicted under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Appeal dismissed by Additional District Judge - Revision against judgment - Non-disclosure of certain payments in complaint and notice - Consideration of Delhi High Court order - Whether complainant approached the court with unclean hands.

Analysis:
The petitioner was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Trial Court and sentenced to six months imprisonment along with a compensation amount. The petitioner's appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, leading to the filing of a revision petition. The key issue in this case was the non-disclosure of specific payments in the complaint and statutory notice, which the High Court found crucial. The court noted that certain sums were not informed in the statutory notice, complaint, or during the chief examination of the complainant before the trial court. This non-disclosure was considered significant in the judgment.

The High Court emphasized the importance of full disclosure in legal proceedings, citing a similar situation addressed by the Delhi High Court in a different case. The court referred to the Delhi High Court's order, highlighting the necessity for the principal amount demanded in a notice to be accurate and clearly identified. The court observed that demanding more than the actual amount payable could be considered dishonest conduct. The judgment underscored the legal requirement for notices under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act to specify the correct principal amount payable to ensure validity.

The courts below were found to have erred in not considering the implications of the undisclosed payments on the case. The High Court questioned whether the complainant had approached the court with unclean hands due to the lack of full disclosure. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. The petitioner was acquitted of all charges, and any bail bond executed was canceled. The order clarified that this decision did not prejudice any civil remedies available to the parties. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.