9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the judgments and conviction orders of the lower courts. 2. Proof of the debt owed by the petitioner to the second respondent. 3. Validity of the cheques issued by the petitioner. 4. Service of statutory notice to the petitioner. 5. Procedural compliance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the judgments and conviction orders of the lower courts: The petitioner contended that the judgments and orders of the two lower courts were illegal and perverse. The High Court reviewed the evidence and found that both the trial court and the Sessions Court had properly appreciated the factual and legal aspects of the case. The concurrent findings of fact by the two courts were based on evidence and statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court concluded that there was no procedural error or denial of a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend the case, thereby upholding the legality of the judgments and conviction orders. 2. Proof of the debt owed by the petitioner to the second respondent: The second respondent claimed that an amount of Rs.1,12,359/- was due from the petitioner, and this was substantiated by the issuance of four cheques. The petitioner argued that there was no material evidence to show that the goods were supplied to him. The High Court noted that the second respondent had provided sufficient explanation regarding the debt and the difference in the amount due, which was credited to the account of Vikas Chemicals. The statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Act supported the second respondent's claim, and the petitioner failed to rebut this presumption with any material evidence. 3. Validity of the cheques issued by the petitioner: The petitioner admitted to issuing the cheques but claimed they were given as a deposit and not against the delivery of goods. The High Court observed that the cheques were issued and signed by the petitioner, and the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Act was in favor of the second respondent, indicating that the cheques were issued for consideration. The petitioner did not produce any evidence to disprove or rebut this presumption. The High Court found that the petitioner's defense was insufficient to challenge the validity of the cheques. 4. Service of statutory notice to the petitioner: The petitioner contended that he did not receive the statutory notice demanding the cheque amounts. The second respondent provided evidence of the notice being sent by registered post and under certificate of posting, with postal acknowledgments produced in court. The High Court referred to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 6 of the Post Office Act, which create a presumption of service when a notice is dispatched correctly. The High Court found that the petitioner's mere denial of receipt was insufficient to rebut this presumption, and both lower courts had correctly found that the notice was duly served. 5. Procedural compliance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The High Court reviewed the procedural aspects and found that the cheques were presented within the stipulated period, notices were issued within the required time frame, and the complaint was filed within the limitation period. The court concluded that all procedural requirements of Section 138 of the Act were met, and there was no technical error or illegality in the actions of the second respondent. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the revision application, confirming the judgments and orders of the trial court and the Sessions Court. The petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was directed to surrender to custody to serve the remaining sentence. The court discharged the rule and upheld the concurrent findings of fact and law by the lower courts.
|
