9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act challenged. 2. Validity of authorization for filing complaint by Managing Director. 3. Applicability of legal principles from previous cases. 4. Consideration of evidence regarding stolen cheques. 5. Modification of sentence from substantive to fine with default provision. Issue 1: Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act challenged: The revision petition contested the judgment setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent for dishonoring a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Judge had found the respondent liable for the offence, leading to conviction and a sentence of imprisonment and a fine. However, the Appellate Judge allowed the appeal, acquitting the accused on the grounds of lack of proper authorization by the company's Managing Director to file the complaint. Issue 2: Validity of authorization for filing complaint by Managing Director: The respondent raised a contention regarding the lack of proper authorization for the Managing Director to file the complaint on behalf of the company. The Appellate Judge upheld this argument, citing a previous case law precedent that emphasized the necessity of valid authorization for legal proceedings on behalf of a company. The revision petitioner argued that the Managing Director was empowered to represent the company in legal matters as per the articles of association and a resolution dated 30-5-1987. Issue 3: Applicability of legal principles from previous cases: The revision petitioner challenged the application of legal principles from a previous case by the Appellate Judge. The petitioner argued that the case law cited by the Appellate Judge regarding authorization was misapplied, as it pertained to an Assistant Manager, not a Managing Director. The petitioner also highlighted Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the ability of a company to rectify any lack of authority during legal proceedings. Issue 4: Consideration of evidence regarding stolen cheques: The respondent contended that the cheques were stolen by a third party and used to deceive the complainant, leading to false accusations. However, both the Trial Judge and the Appellate Judge rejected this argument based on the evidence presented. The courts found it unlikely that the accused would request the third party to stand surety if the cheques were stolen, indicating deception by the accused. Issue 5: Modification of sentence from substantive to fine with default provision: While upholding the conviction, the revision petition allowed relief to the respondent by modifying the sentence from substantive imprisonment to a fine with a default provision. The respondent was directed to pay a fine, failing which he would undergo a specified period of imprisonment. The court granted a two-month period for the payment of the fine, after which default consequences would apply. In conclusion, the revision petition was allowed, setting aside the acquittal of the respondent and restoring the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The sentence was modified to a fine with a default provision, providing relief to the respondent while upholding the conviction.
|
