The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed criminal revision applications filed by both the complainant and the accused in cheque dishonour cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The revisions filed by the complainant and the accused were dismissed. Bail bonds of the accused were cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATIONS NO.23 & 24 of 2007, 33 of 2006 and 37 & 38 of 2007
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATIONS NO.23 & 24 of 2007 and 33 of 2006
Mr. Damodar S. Prabhu, A/4, Shri Om Co.op. Housing Society, Cujira, Santa Cruz, Ilhas, Goa. .... Petitioner
V/s
Mr. B.H. Sayed, R/o. Nr. Gharkul Co.op. Housing Society, Bainguinim, Old Goa, Ilhas, Goa. .... Respondent Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Respondent.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATIONS NO.37 of 2007 and 38 of 2007
Shri Sayed Babalal H., R/at Gharkul Co-operative housing Society, Bainguinim, Old Goa, Ilhas, Goa. Presently residing at Navelkar Estate, C-6-G1, Baiguinim, Old Goa, Ilhas Goa. .... Petitioner
V/s
2
CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J.
DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2007
ORAL ORDER :
These revisions arise from three cases in which 4 cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured.
way of repayment of money advanced by the complainant to the accused.
3
would fill in the amount of Rs. 25,000/- on each of the cheques and present them in 6 different months. The accused stated that he had taken the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant and it is towards the repayment of the said sum that the said 6 blank cheques were given.
4
17,500/- in relation to the cheque of Rs. 4,30,000/- pertaining to which the first appellate Court had acquitted the accused and this Court has convicted the accused.
5
instrument entire body has to be written by maker or drawer only. What is material is signature of drawer or maker and not the body writing and hence the question of body writing has no significance. The learned first appellate Court also referred to the case of K. Bhaskaran V/s. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999(4) ALL MR 452) wherein the Apex Court had observed thus:
As the signature in the cheque was admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability and the burden was on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption.
6
Naik and these inconsistent pleas, only show the falsity of the case of the complainant.
to him and received by him on 4/12/2000. The very defence taken by the
7
accused that he had given 6 cheques towards the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/from the complainant with an understanding that the complainant would fill in each of the cheques for Rs. 25,000/- and present them in 6 different months, sounds to be highly improbable. The accused who is a tax consultant, in case his plea was true, would have certainly written the amount in the cheques as well as the dates of the months in which the said cheques were required to be presented for payment and would not have left the same to be done by the complainant. That apart and as rightly observed by the learned first appellate Court, even that plea which otherwise appears to be improbable was not put by the accused to the complainant nor was it taken in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code, but came for the first time only in the defence evidence of the accused and that only again reflects the falsity of the said plea and makes it clear that it was taken as an afterthought.
8
the compensation to Rs. 2,30,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 3 months.
9
of a full proof nature was possible to be laid down in awarding appropriate sentence, the sentence should be proportionate to the crime committed and the same should be awarded by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not only the rights of the criminals which are required to be looked into at the time of imposition of the sentence, but also of the victims of the crime and the Society at large, also by considering the object sought to be achieved by the particular legislation. Sentence to be imposed should also have a deterrent effect.
N.A. BRITTO, J.
NH/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the defence of blank cheques given for future filling was credible given the accused's silence and subsequent contradictory pleas.
Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld despite the accused's claim of using blank cheques.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Jayantilal Shah V/s. Mashruwala & Anr.Referred¶31
Satish Jayantilal Shah V/s. Mashruwala & Anr. (1996 Cr.L.J. 3099)
K. Bhaskaran V/s. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.Referred¶33
K. Bhaskaran V/s. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999(4) ALL MR 452)
Gorantla Venkateswara Rao V/s. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao & Anr.Referred¶38
Gorantla Venkateswara Rao V/s. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao & Anr. (2006 CRI.L.J. 1) · Who else cites this
Girishbhai Natvarbhai Patel V/s. State of GujaratReferred¶38
Girishbhai Natvarbhai Patel V/s. State of Gujarat 7 Anr. (2006 (3) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 51)
Basavraj D. Allayyanavar V/s. Santosh KapadiReferred¶48
Basavraj D. Allayyanavar V/s. Santosh Kapadi (2007 (1) BOM C.R.(Cri) 1028) · Who else cites this
Suganthi S. Kumar V/s. JagdeeshanReferred¶48
Suganthi S. Kumar V/s. Jagdeeshan (AIR 2002 SC 681) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Damodar S. Prabhu
Mr. B.H. Sayed
Shri Sayed Babalal H.
DA
N.A. BRITTO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
