9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outh 24-Parganas. The said order of conviction and sentence was challenged in a Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court, South 24-Parganas at Alipore and in the said appeal her order of conviction although was confirmed but the sentence of fine was set aside and the amount of compensation has been reduced to Rs. 3,90,780/-. In this criminal revision the petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment and order of the Appellate Court. 2. The trial of the petitioner was held on a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magsitrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in connection with the case No. C-914/2000, on the following allegations. The accused Krishna Gupta the proprietor of Krish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alidated on May 2, 2000, but the account on which such cheque was drawn were closed on and from March 28, 2000. As such it cannot be said the said cheques were drawn on an existing account and accordingly no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can said to have been made out. c) The liability of the accused persons against the cheques in question was never proved. d) The cheques if at all were issued against running transaction and not against any specific transaction. e) Before the presentation of the cheques in the bank the petitioner by a letter in writing requested the complainant not to present the same for encashment. i) Mr. Bagchl in course of his submission relied on the following decisions, i) Ashok Hegde v. Jathin V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l contentions of the parties. Perused the materials on records. Considered. 9. I find no merits in the submissions of Mr. Bagchi as the cognizance was taken before the expiry of the statutory period contemplated in Section 138(c) of the N. I. Act, the entire trial has been vitiated and consequently the conviction of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. The statutory period prescribed in Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instrument Act is only aimed to afford an opportunity to the drawer of the cheque for making payment of the cheque amount within that period, at the risk of penal consequences. However when no payment has been at all made and the accused in his defence denied that such cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eque is dishonoured as the amount of money standing to the credit of "that account" was "nil" at the relevant time apart from it being closed. Closure of the account would be an eventuality after the entire amount in the account is withdrawn. It means that there was no amount in the credit of "that account" on the relevant date when the cheque was presented for honouring the same. The expression "the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque" is a genus of which the expression "that account being closed" is a specie. Alter issuing the cheque drawn on an account maintained, a person, if he closes "that account" apart from the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struments Act, if accepted would completely frustrate the very object of insertion the said provisions by Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Law (Amendment) Act, 1988. In any event, this is not a case of drawing of a cheque on a defunct account but revalidation of cheque which was drawn on an existing account. The revalidation of cheque, as in the instant case by extending the period of validity secure such cheque against loss of enforceability and sustain its validity. 11. So far as the rest of submissions of Mr. Bagchi is concerned those are against the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. Since, on examination of the same I do not find any manifest illegalities in such concurrent fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside only on the ground that the same was not preceded by imposition of any sentence. The case is remanded back to the Trial Court to pass necessary order only on the question of sentence and compensation in accordance with law without being influenced by the fact of the amount of compensation was reduced by the Appellate Court, which was not only otherwise wholly unjustified, but has been set aside by this Court. The Trial Court is further directed to take into consideration the ratio of the decision of the case of Mongilal v. State of M.P. reported in and in the case of Biswajit Chowdhury v. S.S. Distributors reported in 2002 (3) CHN 682. The Criminal Section is directed to send clown the Lower Court Records to the Court below at once. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
