9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in the affirmative, the complainant would suffer the dismissal of his complaint - revision allowed. - Crl.R.C.No.936 of 2016 Crl.M.P.No.7274 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - C. T. Selvam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.Prakash Goklaney For the Respondent : Mr.M.P.Saravanan ORDER This revision arises against the judgment of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Krishnagiri, passed in C.A.No.46 of 2015 on 07.04.2016 confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur, passed in S.T.C.No.330 of 2014 on 07.04.2016. 2. Petitioner faced trial for offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.330 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ient states that you have also issued Second cheque of the same date bearing No.000407 of amount ₹ 15,67,097/- against the due amount of ₹ 15,67,097/- against the goods purchased from my client vide Bill No.2231, 2234 2269 on 17/10/2007, 17/10/2007 31/10/2007 respectively of each amounting to ₹ 4,33,100/-, 4,39,935/- 6,94,062/- respectively, thus total due amounting to ₹ 15,67,097/-. My client further states that you have issued Third cheque bearing No.000408 of the same date of amount ₹ 16,13,633/- against the due pending amount ₹ 16,13,633/- raised against the Bill Nos.1434, 2288, 2354, D.N.129, 2470, 2471, D.N.131, 2947, D.N.142, D.N.144, D.N.145, D.N.146 2981 respectively. Thus in order to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was only ₹ 32,97,600/-, after giving credit of ₹ 10,50,000/- received by him by RTGS on 7.10.2008. Thus, the respondent called upon the petitioner to pay much more than the amount actually due and payable by it. In order to comply with the demand made in the notice, the petitioner would have been required to pay the whole of the amount of ₹ 49,47,600/- to the complainant/respondent. A perusal of the notice would show that the complainant did not at all refer to the payment of ₹ 16,50,000/- received through RTGS, while issuing the notice of demand dated 19.12.2008. This is not as if the complainant/respondent acknowledged the payment of ₹ 16,50,000/- and despite that asked the petitioner to make payment of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al amount claimed in the notice of demand is more than the principal amount actually payable to the payee of the cheque and the notice also does not indicate the basis for demanding the excess amount, such a notice cannot be said to be a legal and valid notice envisaged in Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instrument Act. In such a case, it is not open to the complainant to take the plea that the drawer of the cheque could have escaped liability by paying the actual amount due from him to the payee of the cheque. In order to make the notice legal and valid, it must necessarily specify the principal amount payable to the payee of the cheque and the principal amount demanded from the drawer of the cheque should not be more than the actual amount p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
