2013 (4) TMI 186 - HC - Companies Law

Offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Accused firm had issued Exts.P2 and P3 cheques for in discharge of a debt due - Statutory notice issued to the accused - Held that - The complainant produced various documents to show that the accused were indebted to the complainant. Except for simply denying the same, there was no definite case for the accused. Except for the self-interested statement, there was no evidence to show that what he stated was true. There is no case for the accused that the particulars in the cheque were filled up by the complainant. - Apart from the above fact, as already noticed by the courts below, if as a matter of fact, the accused found that the cheques were stolen, he would have taken immediate steps to issue at least stop memo to the bank. Even to the statutory notice issued to the accused, he did not respond. Therefore, both the courts below are justified in coming to the respective conclusions. No grounds are made out warranting interference with the orders of the courts below. This revision petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Accused convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Discrepancy in lower appellate court's sentence modification - Filing of memo by advocate for revision petitioner - Accused's denial of debt and lack of evidence - Failure to respond to statutory notice - Justification of lower courts' conclusions.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the accused were prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The first and second accused were found guilty, leading to their conviction. The second accused was sentenced to eight months of simple imprisonment and a compensation amount with a default clause. In appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and a reduced compensation amount with a default clause. The amount, if realized, was directed to be disbursed to the second respondent.

The complainant alleged that the second accused, as the Managing Partner of the firm, issued cheques in discharge of a debt. The cheques were returned upon presentation, and the accused failed to respond to the statutory notice, resulting in the filing of a complaint. Evidence included testimony and documents from the complainant, with the accused denying the incriminating circumstances during questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, concluded that the offence was established, leading to the conviction and sentence. In the appeal, the conviction was upheld while the sentence was modified. The judgment also mentions procedural aspects, such as the filing of memos by advocates and court directions regarding the same.

The evidence presented by the complainant indicated the debt owed by the accused, with the accused failing to provide a substantial defense. The accused's lack of action upon receiving the statutory notice and the absence of evidence supporting their claims further weakened their case. The courts found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions, justifying their respective conclusions.

In conclusion, the revision petition was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly. The judgment highlights the importance of evidence, response to legal notices, and the justification for appellate court decisions in cases involving offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act.