2018 (9) TMI 1001 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - recovery of amount remain unpaid arising as a result of Business Transaction - whether the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is sustainable in law? - Held that - This Court is satisfied that there are necessary averments in the affidavit with regard to the knowledge of the Power of Attorney Holder representing the respondent/private complainant. Accordingly, I have no hesitation to hold that the statutory requirement of the affidavit relating to personal knowledge of the Power of Attorney is fully complied with. From the evidence of the prosecution witness P.W.1 and the documents Ex.P.1 to P.13, it is seen that private complainant has successfully demonstrated regarding the business transaction between the parties and revision petitioner has liability of ₹ 4,60,388/- which has been admitted under Ex.P.3. Since the said document remained unchanged and the cheque in issue was also representing legally enforceable debt and the cheque was dishonored with an endorsement stop Payment and even after statutory notice demanding the payment, he has not paid the amount and hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the Courts bellow cannot be interfered with as they does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of complaint by an unregistered partnership firm under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Validity of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Issue 1: Maintainability of complaint by an unregistered partnership firm under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
The respondent, an unregistered partnership firm, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused for dishonoring a cheque issued for an unpaid amount representing the cost of yarn. The accused challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of lack of mandatory sanction under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act and the use of a Power of Attorney holder for lodging the complaint. However, the Court held that the complaint by an unregistered partnership firm is maintainable as per legal precedents and that the affidavit filed by the Power of Attorney Holder satisfied the statutory requirements.

Issue 2: Validity of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court
The accused admitted the liability for the unpaid amount and the issuance of the dishonored cheque. The Court found that the evidence presented, including the acknowledgment deed and the dishonored cheque, established the business transaction and the accused's liability. The Court noted that the accused did not dispute the execution of the acknowledgment deed during cross-examination and that the evidence supported the complainant's case. The conviction and sentence were upheld as the Courts below did not commit any irregularity or illegality in their decision-making process.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Court found the complaint by the unregistered partnership firm maintainable and concluded that the evidence presented established the accused's liability for the dishonored cheque, leading to the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.