9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned, it is seen that the same is technical in nature and when the technical flaw has been subsequently cured by producing authorization letter under Ex.P18, it would be no longer open for the petitioners to make such a hyper technical contention. In any event, the non production of authorization letter along with the complaint and producing it belatedly is not a ground for acquittal - As far as the contention relating to take over is concerned, there is difference between the take over of the management and merger of the company. It is the case of the accused that the company has merged and the same being a public document it was very much open for the petitioners, to apply for certified copies from the Registrar of Companies and produce th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t so as to upturn the findings of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below. This Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. - Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.9057 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2022 - THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra For the Respondent : Mr.V.Deenadayalan ORDER By a judgment dated 16.09.2016 passed in C.C.No.4273 of 2009, by the Learned Fast Track Court, Magistrate level, No.I, Egmore, Chennai, the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and directing the first and second accused, to jointly pay of compensatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplainant/company was taken over by a different company unless the said company comes on record by way of substitution, the complaint is construed as the one filed by a non-existing person and therefore, it is not maintainable. This apart, after taking over, without any authority of the said company, the erstwhile complainant cannot pursue the complaint by misusing the cheque without even confirming with the new entity. 7.His third contention is that the complainant ought to have proved the transaction, the goods supplied and that the money was due and payable by the accused through relevant invoice and other materials. The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court simply relied upon the admission made on behalf of the accused sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings as against the petitioners/accused. 10.As far as the authorization is concerned, the same was subsequently produced and marked as Ex.P18, therefore, once Ex.P18 is marked, technical objection is no longer sustainable. He would further submit that there is a categorical admission of D.W.1 himself that they are liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,87,575/-, coupled with the said averments, the presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the offense is clearly made out by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has proved the liability beyond any doubt and the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has rightly convicted the petitioners. 11.It is the further submission that the cheque am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n over, then the Trial Court should have dismissed the complaint. 16.A complete reading of cross-examination would make it clear that in the first sentence P.W.1 admitted the company has been taken over and in the next sentence he denied the same and stated that it was not taken over on the date of complaint and further, he answered that the complainant company is still in existence and therefore, it is entitled to continue the complaint. Therefore, the admission of P.W.1 does not lead to acquittal of the accused. As rightly pointed out by the Trial Court it is the defence of the accused and therefore, they are duty bound to produce clinching evidence in respect of the same and when they have not done so, the Trial Court has rightly reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel is also without any merits. 19.Final contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was no pleading as to the prejudice or loss for grant of compensation. It is not a case, where any offence like bodily injury is committed, where the complainant has to show some proof that they sustained loss for the purpose of determining compensation. It is an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it is statutory mandate to order compensation of the cheque amount including twice the cheque amount. Therefore, considering the nature of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the argument of the learned counsel based upon the Section 357 of Cr.P.C., is without any merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
