Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (5) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s branches. He issued a cheque to one person which on presentation was bounced back, and he did not pay the cheque amount even after the receipt of a notice. So a complaint was filed by the payee for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). The prosecution ended in conviction of the Appellant and in appeal the sentence imposed was modified and he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation to the complainant in the case and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo imprisonment for three months. As he did not pay the fine and compensation he was sent to jail and he suffered imprisonment for the entire period. 3. Appellant was discharged fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) who is, or at any time has been adjudicated insolvent, or has suspended payment or has compounded with his creditors, or who is, or has been, convicted by a criminal Court of an offence involving moral turpitude; or A reading of the above clause in the Bipartite Agreement and the section in the Banking Regulation Act leaves no doubt in our mind that if an employee is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude then he is liable to be discharged from service. 5. The contention of the Respondents' counsel is that issuing a cheque without sufficient funds in the bank is an act of cheating. 6. We are of the view, that an offence under Section 138 of the Act need not necessarily take within its wings the offence of cheating as define .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me extent on the state of public morals; it is anything that is done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man; it implies something immoral in itself, regardless of fact whether it is punishable by law. 9. In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, it is defined as the quality of a crime involving grave infringement of the moral sentiment of the community as distinguished from statutory mala prohibita. In Prem's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. II, it is stated that the test which should ordinarily be applied a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... before it was made punishable as a crime, was not generally regarded as morally wrong or corrupt, as offensive to the moral sense as ordinarily developed. Penal statutes always make a distinction between intentional and unintentional acts and the punishments also vary. A person may cause the death of Anr. by his rash and negligent driving, which act, though may be an offence, does not involve moral turpitude, but if a person with a deliberate intention drives a vehicle to kill Anr., it is an offence which involves moral turpitude. Though the act and the result of that act may be the same in both, the main and important difference between the two is the lack of intention in the former, and the presence of it in the latter. At this stage we m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Act is no exception to the said principle. On the facts of the case we find no scope for holding that the offence found against the Appellant has any reflection of moral turpitude. 13. It was then contended by counsel for the Respondents that Appellant should have raised an industrial dispute instead of invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But now we see no reason why we should not exercise the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the order of dismissal has already visited the Appellant and as we hold the view that the offence found would not involve moral turpitude. There is no need now to direct the Appellant to go to other remedies. 14. For the above reasons we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates