9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2021 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. Revision Petition No. 260/2018, set aside the Order dated 24.09.2019 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing summoning of Respondent No. 2 - Sonu Rana, and discharged him in the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth referred to as the 'NI Act') 2. Briefly stated, the Complainant, Nitesh Yadav filed a Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed against Respondent No. 2 Sonu, on the averments that a cheque of Rs. 4,65,000/- issued in discharge of a loan liability of Rs. 5,00,000/- granted to Respondent No. 2-Sonu Rana through his Cousin Brother - Abhishek Malik, on presentation got dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021 observed that the amount of the cheque in terms of Section 18 of NI Act has to be considered as Rs. 4,00,065/-, while the cheque was for amount of Rs. 4,65,000/-. There was a patent ambiguity and the Complainant was unable to establish as to what amount had to be paid by the accused under the cheque. Consequently, the Order of the MM dated 24.09.22018 was set aside and the Respondent No. 2/ accused was discharged. 7. Aggrieved by the said Order of the learned ASJ the present Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Order of Discharge of Respondent No. 2 vide Order dated 17.02.2021. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to Sections 18,20,118,138(b) and 139 of NI Act to submit that a person, who signs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the cheque. Therefore, the dishonor of cheque on the ground of "stop payment' cannot be a ground to dismiss the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act. 11. Reference has been to decision of Apex Court in the matter of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898 wherein it was held that Section 139 NI Act is an example of reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. The rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. Furthermore, merely because there was a difference in the amount of cheque specified in words and figures, would not make a cheque invalid in view of Section 18 of NI Act. Also, di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out any annexure and documents including the cheque in question, its alleged Bank Return Memo, and the Statutory Demand Notice dated 27.01.2018. 17. The Respondent No. 2 has claimed that the Petitioner has misused the cheque in question in league with his friend Abhishek Malik. First and foremost, the original cheque along with its Bank Memo has been tampered as the date of 28.09.2017 has been overwritten. Furthermore, there is discrepancy in the amount of cheque as mentioned in words and figures and in terms of Section 18 of NI Act, the amount mentioned in words has to be accepted as correct. Further, the cheque amount is Rs. 4,00,065/- only while the Demand Notice has been sent for Rs. 4,65,000/- which means that no valid legal Notice ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht within the spirit, there a penal enactment is to be construed like any other instrument according to fair common sense meaning of the language used and Court is not to find or make any doubt or ambiguity in the language of the penal Statute where such doubt or ambiguity would clearly not to be found or made in the same language and any other instrument. 23. The aforesaid case was quoted with approval in the case of M. Naryayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerla AIR 1963 SC 1116 while considering the rule of construction o a penal provision. 24. The aforesaid Judgment was referred to in the case of Suman Sethi Vs Ajay K. Churiwal & Anr., I (2000) SLT 605 wherein it is observed that while reading Section 138 as a whole, common sense must be ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the sum of Rs. 4,65,000/-. Legal Notice specifically and clearly specified the cheque amount. The problem has arisen because though figure in numerical has been clearly written as Rs. 4,65,000/-, but unfortunately while writing in words it was written as "Rs. Four lac sixty five". It is quite evident that though after word Sixty Five there has been inadvertence in not mentioning the word "thousand". Prima facie, the error appears to be inadvertence rather than depicting different amounts. 27. Pertinently, reference has been made to the Return Memo wherein it is clearly indicated that the cheque for the sum of Rs. 4,65,000/- has been dishonoured on account of stop payment. Reading the Notice, the cheque and Bank Memo, it is evident that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
