9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and awarding compensation of eight lacs rupees to the non-applicant No. 2. In default of payment of the amount of compensation to suffer further S.I. for three months under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Cr. Case No. 579/96 on 10-7-2002. 2. Tersely the case of the non-applicant/complainant before the Court below was that the complainant was dealing in the business of transportation. The applicant was the General Manager of J.K. Utility Division on J.K. Synthetics Ltd., whereas the absconded accused Anup Chaturvedi was the Finance Manager. Both were working under the Managing Director Manoj Kumar Mathur. The non-applicant and the co-accused Anup C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ques, the complaint in regard to the cheque amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- dated 12-9-96 was not pressed, because a separate complaint was filed for dishonour of this cheque. 5. Both the Courts below found the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has assailed the conviction of the applicant on the following grounds :-- The applicant was not the in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Therefore, he could not have been held guilty. The cheques were not signed by the applicant and the notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, it has a binding effect. 8. Learned Counsel further submitted that the exact words of Section 141 of the Act need not be reproduced in the complaint, because the facts as stated in the complaint as well as in the statement of the complainant taken in its totality disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged and both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact that the applicant and absconding co-accused Anup Chaturvedi were the in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Now this finding of fact in revision, cannot be challenged. 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Courts have power in view of the judgment rendered in case of Suganthi Suresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company. This Court finds no illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below. Therefore, refrained from interference. If the applicant/accused persons were the incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, then it was immaterial whether they have signed the cheques or not. The fact remains that they had handed over the cheques to the non-applicant and the same were dishonoured. 12. Learned Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that for default of payment of compensation granted under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, jail sentence cannot be imposed. According to him Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code defines punish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel, but the hands of this Court are tied in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Suganthi Suresh Kumar (supra). This judgment is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harikishan v. Sukhbeersingh (. Learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the case of Rajendra v. Jose (supra), while considering the judgment of Harikishan (supra) has distinguished it and directed that the decision in Harsingh's case (supra) is not to be followed as the Supreme Court laid down the said legal proposition without adverting to Section 431 of the Code. On this direction by the Single Judge of Kerala High Court, the Supreme Court depricated this practice and observed as follows in paras 9 and 11 :-- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
