9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debt in favour of the respondent herein. Therefore, the alleged cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt and the petitioner cannot be held to be liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Unfortunately, both the Courts below mechanically convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it cannot be sustained against the petitioner herein. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed. - Crl.R.C(MD)No.777 of 2016 And Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.11138 & 11139 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2023 - Honourable Mr. Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan For the Petitioner : Mr.Ram Sundar Vijay Raj for M/s.Veera Associates For the Respondent : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj ORDER This revision has been filed as against the Judgment dated 18.08.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1410 of 2005, dated 27.01.2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Nego ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, he shall undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. The trial Court also ordered compensation by paying the cheque amount of Rs.23,00,000/- in favour of the respondent payable by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli and the same was also dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only an adviser of Central Excise, Customs and Foreign Trade, and he is no way connected with the functioning of any company called M/s.Trial Tax and TKT Corporation at Tiruppur. The respondent obtained EPCG licence to fulfil the export obligations, and they sought permission from the concerned department for fulfilling the export obligation to the tune of 30% through third parties. The respondent also gave a bank guarantee while availing the EPCG licence for the customs concessions and they submitted necessary bills for the fulfillment of third-party obligations through M/s.Trial Tax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the petitioner cannot say that he had no connection with the said firms and that both the firms are not existence and bogus. Hence, the petitioner is estopped from claiming that he is no way connected with the said firms and that there is no existence of the said firms. The petitioner did not deny his signature and categorically admitted his signature found in the cheque. Therefore, the respondent discharged its initial burden in order to prove its case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner failed to rebut the same by oral or documentary evidence. Hence, both the Courts below rightly convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10.The respondent lodged the complaint to punish the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that the petitioner had issued cheque on behalf of the two companies as guarantor, which were allegedly introduced by the petitioner, namely M/s.Trial Tex and TK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial Tex and TKT Corporation at Tiruppur and he never introduced those concerns to the respondent. The respondent failed to clear the bill for his professional service and as such, the petitioner issued a letter, dated 21.01.2004, which was marked as Ex.D.10. He categorically denied the issuance of the said cheque and further stated that he had money transaction with one Lakshminarayanan, a former executive of the respondent company and he collected a blank cheque in the year 2001. Subsequently, he colluded with the respondent and presented the cheque for collection. Further, in the proceedings initiated by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, by its order, dated 02.02.2009, in which the respondent got EPCG licence to fulfill the export obligation and they sought permission for fulfilling the export obligation to the tune of 30% through a third party. The respondent produced a bank guarantee while availing EPCG licence for the customs concession and they submitted necessary bills for fulfillment of third party obligations through the said companies, namely M/s.Trial Tex and TKT Corporation to the concerned Ministry and secured the necessary order for releasing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
