2023 (8) TMI 528 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - discharge of legally enforceable debt - status of Sunny Traders (to whom cheque was issued) - sole proprietor concern or otherwise - HELD THAT - There is no denial of issuing the cheque by the accused in discharge of his debt and liability and also it being dishonoured, and so also the valid notice. The only contention of the petitioner is regarding the status of Sunny Traders which is not clear. The transaction between the parties is on the basis of a verbal agreement - The business transaction between the parties is also admitted - It is on record by way of evidence before the trial Court that the complainant Avijit Sarkar carries on his business in the name of Sunny Traders - petitioner/accused has not adduced any evidence to prove that the complainant is not the sole proprietor of his business. The complainant has clearly proved that he is the sole proprietor of his business Sunny Traders . Thus, the findings of the Appellate Court in the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 being in accordance with law, requires no interference by this court and is affirmed - revision application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a revision against a judgment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981, passed by the Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Birbhum, regarding a dispute over a cheque issued by the accused.

Details of the judgment:
1. The petitioner was accused of issuing a cheque in favor of "Sunny Traders" which was later found to be dishonored, leading to legal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.
2. The petitioner contended that the complainant did not file the complaint in the proper form and questioned the validity of the cheque being deposited in a savings account of a firm.
3. The petitioner argued that there was no established relationship between the complainant and "Sunny Traders" and cited a relevant judgment to support the claim.
4. The opposite party, as the complainant, maintained that the petitioner received stone chips and issued a cheque in favor of "Sunny Traders," leading to the legal dispute.
5. The trial courts convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act and ordered compensation payment, which was affirmed by the appellate court.
6. The appellate court found that the complainant proved to be the sole proprietor of "Sunny Traders" and that the transaction between the parties was based on a verbal agreement.
7. The petitioner failed to provide evidence to refute the complainant's status as the sole proprietor of the business, leading to the affirmation of the lower court's judgment.
8. The revisional application was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to comply with the compensation order within one month.

Conclusion:
The judgment affirmed the lower court's decision regarding the dishonored cheque case under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing the importance of proving the status of the payee in such cases. The petitioner's failure to challenge the complainant's proprietorship led to the dismissal of the revision application and the directive to comply with the compensation order.