9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a single complaint is maintainable for dishonor of two cheques issued by two different persons. 2. Validity of the notice issued u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Summary: Issue 1: Single Complaint for Two Cheques by Different Persons 1. The petitioners-accused filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 181 of 2009, alleging an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The second respondent filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the petitioners issued two cheques totaling Rs. 11.44 Lakhs, which were dishonored for insufficient funds. 3. The petitioners contended that a single complaint against both accused is not maintainable as separate cheques were issued by each accused. 4. The second respondent argued that there is no illegality in filing a single complaint against both accused. 5. The court referred to previous decisions, including E. Madhu and B. Venkat Narendra Prasad, which allowed single complaints for multiple cheques issued by the same accused. 6. The court noted that the present case involves two cheques issued by two different persons, a situation not addressed in the cited decisions. 7. The court found that both cheques were issued during the same transaction involving a land deal, making it a single transaction. 8. The court examined Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows joint trials for persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction. 9. The court concluded that the present case falls within Section 223(c) and (e) of the Code, allowing a joint trial as the cheques were issued in the course of the same transaction. 10. The court held that there is no illegality in holding a joint trial, even if there is some procedural irregularity, as long as no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused. 11. The petition was dismissed, upholding the maintainability of a single complaint for dishonor of two cheques issued by two different persons. Issue 2: Validity of Notice u/s 13812. The petitioners argued that the notice was invalid as it demanded a consolidated amount without specifying individual liabilities. 13. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana, which required a specific demand for the cheque amount in the notice. 14. The court examined the notice dated 25.10.2004, which clearly demanded the amount covered by the two dishonored cheques. 15. The court found that the notice complied with the requirements set out in Indira's case, making it valid. 16. The court held that the notice was proper and the complaint was maintainable. Conclusion:25. The petition was dismissed, upholding the maintainability of a single complaint for dishonor of two cheques issued by two different persons and the validity of the notice issued u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
|
