Allowed

M/S Nazama Traders v. M/S Arihant Marketing

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2023CRL.RP/6/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision petitions in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 NI Act. Court held that since accused made part payments after cheque issuance but before encashment without endorsing balance per Section 56, the cheque did not represent a legally enforceable debt, thus acquitting the accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petitions allowed; judgments of ACMM and Sessions Judge set aside; petitioner acquitted under Section 138 NI Act; bail bonds cancelled.

M/S Nazama Traders Vs M/S Arihant Marketing — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.P.No.6/2016 c/w

¶2

Crl.R.P.No.1362/2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 R

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.6/2016 C/w. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1362/2015

¶6

IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.6/2016:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S.NAZAMA TRADERS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SYED NAZIM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS # 230, VEERAPALLIAI STREET BANGALORE 560 042. …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY JAIRAJ G., ADV. )

¶10

AND :

¶11

M/S.ARIHANT MARKETING REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT.LALITHA R/A.#4, 1^ST FLOOR # 23, P.S.LANE CHIKKAPET, BANGALORE REP.BY HER S.P.HOLDER SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI N.JAIPRAKASH RAO, ADV.)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 CR.P.C R/W.401 CR.P.C.PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

¶14

¶15

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶16

THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED 42^ND ACMM, BANGALORE IN CC NO.20049/2011 BY ITS JUDGMENT DATED 6.11.2014 AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 59) BANGALORE CITY IN CRL.A.1293/2014 DATED 2.12.2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶17

IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1362/2015

¶18

BETWEEN:

¶19

M/S.NAZAMA TRADERS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SYED NAZIM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS # 230, VEERAPALLIAI STREET BANGALORE 560 042.

¶20

……PETITIONER

¶21

(BY JAIRAJ G., ADV. )

¶22

AND:

¶23

M/S.ARIHANT MARKETING REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT.LALITHA R/A.#4, 1^ST FLOOR # 23, P.S.LANE CHIKKAPET, BANGALORE REP.BY HER S.P.HOLDER SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI N.JAIPRAKASH RAO, ADV.)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 CR.P.C R/W.401 CR.P.C.PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLII ACMM, BANGALORE IN CC NO.20048/2011 BY ITS JUDGMENT DATED 6.11.2014 AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON’BLE

¶26

¶27

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶28

LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 59) BANGALORE CITY IN CRL.A.1292/2014 DATED 2.12.2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶29

THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Challenging the judgments of conviction and sentence dated 6.11.2014 passed by the XLII ACMM, Bengaluru City in CC Nos.20048/2011 and 20049/2011 and confirmed by the judgment dated 2.12.2015 by the LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl. Appeal Nos.1292/2014 and 1293/2014, the petitioner-accused has preferred these revision petitions.

¶32

Though separate judgments are passed by both the Courts, the parties are same, question of facts and law involved in the cases are one and the same and common argument is advanced by both the counsels for petitioner and respondent respectively and hence, to avoid the repetition of discussion and confusion, with consent of both the side, the common judgment is passed in both revision petitions.

¶33

¶34

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶35

For the purpose of convenience, parties to this petition are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶36

That, complainant filed two private complaints against accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short `Act’). It is stated that accused is an Electrical Contractor and customer of the complainant. In view of the business transactions in between them, accused was due to pay Rs.97,97,652.56 to the complainant. As the accused did not pay the same, therefore, complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate and the same was referred for investigation to Commercial Street Police Station. The jurisdictional police registered the crime against the accused in Crime No.195/2009 and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. Thereafter, accused came forward for settlement and accordingly, before the XI ACMM, Memorandum of Settlement was presented on 6.12.2010 wherein instead of Rs.97,97,652.56, accused agreed to pay a sum of

¶37

¶38

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶39

Rs.51,00,000/-. In view of the settlement, complainant withdrew his complaint.

¶40

It is the case of the complainant that, when himself and accused were transacting with each other, accused paid Rs.50,000/- in cash on 26.11.2010 and issued a demand draft on 2.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. Thus, in all he has paid Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶41

It is his further case that, pursuant to the said memorandum of settlement, accused issued two cheques bearing No.004790 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.40,00,000/- dated 20.1. 2011 and cheque no. 004791 dated 20.3.2011 drawn on the same bank for Rs.6,00,000/-. He also has transferred a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of RTGS to the account of the complainant at ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Chikpet Branch, Bengaluru.

¶42

On assurance of the accused, complainant presented the said cheques for encashment through his banker but, they were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of

¶43

¶44

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶45

accused. Therefore, complainant issued statutory notices to the accused calling upon him to pay the said amount. There was no payment as such. Therefore, complainant was constrained to file two complaints.

¶46

In both the private complaints, SP holder of the complainant was examined as PW.1 and independently documents were marked in both the complaints. No defence evidence was lead by the accused in both the complaints.

¶47

After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the offence under Section 138 of the Act in both the cases and convicted him for the said offences. The said judgments of conviction and sentence were challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court on hearing the arguments, in both the appeals stated supra, confirmed the said judgments passed by the trial Court. This is how now the petitioner-accused is before this Court in these two revision petitions.

¶48

¶49

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶50

It is argued by the learned counsel for accused that, in view of the facts and circumstances brought on record in the cross examination, it is proved that no offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is committed by the accused. Before issuing the cheques, petitioner has paid amount by way of cash and by way of demand draft. So also he transferred certain amount by way of RTGS. Therefore, the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is not complete. As on the date of issuance of the cheque, the accused was not at all liable to pay either Rs.40,00,000/- or Rs.6,00,000/-. Evidence in both the cases show that accused has paid Rs.10,75,000/- to the complainant which is admitted by the complainant. In all Rs.24,75,000/- has been paid by the accused. This payment is towards both the cheques.

¶51

It is further submitted that, the learned trial Court has lost sight of such payment. The said cheques were issued by way of security to the complainant which were misused by the complainant. In support of his submission, he relies upon the various evidence spoken to by PW.1 and also documents so marked in this case.

¶52

¶53

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶54

As against this submission, the learned counsel for respondent-complainant supported the findings of the trial Court and First Appellate Court. He submits that, both the Courts have rightly come to the conclusion about commission of offence by the accused in both the complaints. As the cheques were issued respectively for Rs.40,00,000/- and 6,00,000/- and because of dishonour of cheques, complainant was constrained to file the complaint for the aforesaid offence. He justifies the conviction and sentence passed by the trial and affirmed by the first appellate court.

¶55

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and meticulously perused the record.

¶56

Before adverting to the other aspects of the case, let me analyze the admitted facts between both the sides.

¶57

The admitted facts are that there were business transactions in between complainant and accused. Accused is a electrical contractor and customer of the complainant. In view of the business transactions, it was alleged by the complainant

¶58

¶59

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶60

that accused had to pay Rs.97,97,652.56 ps. to the complainant. As accused did not pay the same, complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate and it was referred for investigation to the Commercial Street Police Station. Based upon that reference, the jurisdictional police registered the crime in Crime No.195/2009. After investigation, filed the chargesheet before the XI ACMM, Bengaluru City. During the pendency of the said criminal case before the said Criminal Court, there was a Memorandum of Settlement on 06.12.2010 which was presented before the Court. By virtue of the said settlement, instead of Rs.97,97,652.56 ps. accused agreed to pay Rs.51,00,000/- in all.

¶61

When the complainant and accused were transacting with each other, accused paid Rs.50,000/- on 26.11.2010 and paid Rs.4,50,000/- on 02.12.2010. Pursuant to the said settlement, accused issued two cheques bearing No.004790 for Rs.40,00,000/dated 20.01.2011 and cheque bearing No.004791 dated 20.03.2011 for Rs.6,00,000/-. He also transferred Rs.5,00,000/- by way of RTGS. The said cheques

¶62

¶63

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶64

were drawn on State Bank of India. The said cheques were presented as per the assurance of the accused but were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Therefore, the complainant got issued the legal notice Ex.P.3 and called upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. As accused has not paid the cheque amount, the complainant was constrained to file two separate complaints against the accused alleging offence under Section 138 of the Act. These are the admitted facts which need not be proved.

¶65

So far as Section 138 of the Act is concerned, it

¶66

provides that a drawer of a cheque is deemed to have committed the offence if the ingredients stated below are fulfilled:

¶67

i) a cheque drawn for the payment of any amount of money to another person,

¶68

ii) the cheque is drawn for the discharge of the ‘whole or part’ of any debt or other liability.’ Debt or other liability’ means legally enforceable debt or other liability and

¶69

iii) the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid because of insufficient funds.

¶70

¶71

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶72

The law mandates that the cheque must be presented in the bank within six months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity. The holder of a cheque must make a demand for payment of the ‘said amount of money’ by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days’ from receipt of the notice from the bank that the cheque was returned dishonoured and the holder of the cheque fails to make the payment of the ‘said amount of money’ within 15 days’ from receipt of the notice.

¶73

If these ingredients are applied to the present facts

¶74

of the case, as per the evidence brought on record, the first cheque was for Rs.40,00,000/- dated 20.01.2011 and the cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- was dated 20.03.2011. The cheques were presented and the notice of dishonour was issued on 18.04.2011 respectively. After dishonour of the said cheques the legal notice came to be issued on 20.04.2011. The said notice is duly served as per the postal acknowledgement produced in these cases which is not disputed. No reply was issued to the said notices nor payment was made. Thus, there is

¶75

¶76

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶77

compliance of some of the ingredients by the complainant in filing the complaint.

¶78

PW-1 being the complainant has reiterated the complaint averments in his evidence on oath. In his examination-in-chief, it is stated by him that during the pendency of the case, the accused has made the following payments:

¶79

i) On 18.12.2011 through cheque of Rs.5,00,000/ii) On 16.12.2011 through cheque Rs.3,00,000/iii) On 28.12.2011 through cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- and through cash Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶80

Thus as per the say of the complainant himself, in all in respect of a cheque for Rs.40,00,000/-, he has received Rs.24,75,000/-. According to him, after deducting the aforesaid amount, the accused has to pay Rs.26,25,000/-.

¶81

In C.C.No.20049/2011, the similar evidence has been spoken to byPW-1 with regard to the receipt of the amount to the extent of Rs.24,75,000/-. That means, in both the cases it

¶82

¶83

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶84

is the evidence of PW-1 that, the total amount due from the accused is Rs.26,25,000/- only and not Rs.51,00,000/-.

¶85

This PW-1 has been thoroughly cross-examined in both the cases. In unequivocal terms, this PW.1 has admitted that before he presenting Ex.P.1 cheque to his ICICI Bank account, Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited and is correct. He admits that in Ex.P.3 notice he demanded Rs.40,00,000/- by issuing notice. Though there is denial of some suggestions, but before presenting the cheque and after filing the complaints, he has received money is admitted by him. Even he admits that prior to Ex.P.8 accused has paid Rs.5,00,000/- to him. He admits about striking out of date on Ex.P.1 and correcting it as 20.01.2011. In page 7 of the cross-examination, he admits that after receipt of the notice, accused has made several payments on various dates. A question is posed to PW-1 that, was there any impediment for him to return the cheque Ex.P.1 which was issued for Rs.40,00,000/- and then to collect a cheque for Rs.35,00,000/-. The answer was, he had already filed a

¶86

¶87

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶88

complaint for whatever the amount due from the accused on that day.

¶89

Even it is his evidence that accused made payments even after filing complaint. Such evidence is spoken to in both the cases.

¶90

It is argued by the counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that, when there is a payment made after issuance of the cheque, the legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment is less than the sum represented in the cheque.

¶91

That means a part payment has been made and as per law, there is no legally enforceable debt and hence, if really the complainant was really aggrieved, he would have got an endorsement on cheque as per Section 56 of the Act, and got changed the amount to bring the said case under the provisions of Act. Evidently, the complainant has not followed the provisions of Section 56 of the Act, for having received the part of the amount and for remaining got an endorsement on the said

¶92

cheque as stated in the said provision of law. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused that, as there is no

¶93

¶94

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶95

legally enforceable debt, so therefore, the provisions of the Act has no application. It is submitted that the said cheques were issued for security purpose and they have been misused by the complainant. In support of his submission, he relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL VS. HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER¹ . It is held in the said judgment as under:

¶96

“ When a part-payment is made after the issuance of a post-dated cheque, the legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment is less than the sum represented in the cheque. A part-payment or a full payment may have been made between the date when the debt has accrued to the date when the cheque is sought to be encashed. (Para 13)

¶97

As per law laid down by the Supreme Court on the issuance of post-dated cheques and cheques issued for the purpose of security, the following principles emerge:

¶98

(1) Where the borrower agrees to repay the loan within a specified timeline and issues a cheque for security but defaults in repaying the loan within the timeline, the cheque matures for presentation. When the cheque is sought to be encashed by the debtor and is dishonoured, Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 will be attracted.

¶99

1 (2023) 1 SCC 578

¶100

¶101

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶102

(2) However, the cardinal rule when a cheque is issued for security is that between the date on which the cheque is drawn to the date on which the cheque matures, the loan could be repaid through any other mode. It is only where the loan is not repaid through any other mode within the due date that the cheque would mature for presentation.

¶103

(3) If the loan has been discharged before the due date or if there is an "altered situation", then the cheque shall not be presented for encashment.

¶104

(Para 16)

¶105

The true purpose of Section 138 would not be fulfilled, if "debt or other liability" is interpreted to include only a debt that exists as on the date of drawing of the cheque. Moreover, Parliament has used the expression "debt or other liability". The expression "or other liability" must have a meaning of its own, the legislature having used two distinct phrases. The expression "or other liability" has a content which is broader than "a debt" and cannot be equated with the latter. (Para 17)

¶106

Sunil Todi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 16 SCC 762: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1174, relied on

¶107

The interpretation of Section 138 must not permit dishonesty of the drawee of the cheque as well. A cheque is issued as security to provide the drawee of the cheque with a leverage of using the cheque in case the drawer fails to pay the debt in the future. Therefore, cheques are issued and

¶108

¶109

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶110

received as security with the contemplation that a part or the full sum that is addressed in the cheque may be paid before the cheque is encashed. (Para 19)

¶111

The judgments of the Supreme Court on post-dated cheques when read with the purpose of Section 138 indicate that an offence under the provision arises if the cheque represents a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity. The offence under Section 138 is tipped by the dishonour of the cheque when it is sought to be encashed. Though a postdated cheque might be drawn to represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of its drawing, for the offence to be attracted, the cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. If there has been a material change in the circumstance such that the sum in the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of maturity or encashment. then the offence under Section 138 is not made out. (Para 20)

¶112

Indus Airways (P) Ltd. v. Magnum Aviation (P) Ltd., (2014) 12 SCC 539: (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 138: (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 845, held, superseded on this point

¶113

Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 458: (2017) 1 SCC (Civ) 126 : (2017) 1 SCC (Cri) 14;, Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 18 SCC 61: 2021 SCC Online SC 1002; Sunil Todi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 16 SCC 762: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1174; NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Magma Leasing Ltd..

¶114

¶115

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶116

(1999) 4 SCC 253: 1999 SCC (Cri) 524; Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Indian Technologists & Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd., (1996) 2 SCC 739: 1996 SCC (Cri) 454, relied on

¶117

In this case, the cheque was given as a security to discharge the loan, either undated or dated as 17-3-2014. Merely because the sum of Rs 4,09,315 was paid between 8-4-2012 and 30-12-2013, which was after 17-3-2014, it cannot be concluded that the sum was not paid in discharge of the loan of rupees twenty lakhs. The sum of Rs 4,09,315 was paid after the loan was lent to the first respondent. The appellant complainant in his cross-examination has not denied the receipt of the payments. He has also stated it was not received as a "gift or reward". In view of the above discussion, at the time of the encashment of the cheque, the first respondent did not owe a sum of rupees twenty lakhs as represented in the cheque at the time of encashment of the cheque that was issued for security .(Para 24)

¶118

Under Section 56 read with Section 15 of the NI Act, 1881, an endorsement may be made by recording the partpayment of the debt in the cheque or in a note appended to the cheque. When such an endorsement is made, the instrument could still be used to negotiate the balance amount. If the endorsed cheque when presented for encashment of the balance amount is dishonoured, then the drawee can take recourse to the provisions of Section 138. Thus, when a part-payment of the debt is made after the cheque was drawn but before the cheque is encashed, such

¶119

¶120

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶121

payment must be endorsed on the cheque under Section 56 of the NI Act, 1881. The cheque cannot be presented for encashment without recording the part-payment. If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence under Section 138 would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. (Para 33)

¶122

On the issue of cheque dishonour in cases of partpayment of the underlying debt or amount, the applicable principles can be summarised as follows:

¶123

(1) For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation.

¶124

(2) If the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque.

¶125

(3) When a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the NI Act, 1881. The cheque endorsed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance, if any. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted.

¶126

(4) The first respondent has made part-payments after the debt was incurred and before the cheque was encashed upon maturity. The sum of rupees twenty lakhs represented

¶127

¶128

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶129

on the cheque was not the "legally enforceable debt" on the date of maturity. Thus, the first respondent cannot be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 when the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds.

¶130

(5) The notice demanding the payment of the "said amount of money" has been interpreted by judgments of the Supreme Court to mean the cheque amount. The conditions stipulated in the provisos to Section 138 need to be fulfilled in addition to the ingredients in the substantive part of Section 138. Since in this case, the first respondent has not committed an offence under Section 138, the validity of the form of the notice need not be decided.” (Para 34)

¶131

It is very much clear that as per the facts of this case also, there was payment of money by the accused towards the cheque amount and even after then as per his own evidence, accused is due to pay Rs.26,25,000/- and the complainant has received part payment of Rs.24,75,000/- as per the settlement. When complainant has received substantial amount, then complainant would have resorted to Section 56 of the Act. Section 15 of the Act also speaks of indorsement which reads as under:

¶132

¶133

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶134

‘When a maker or holder of a negotiable instrument signs the same, otherwise than as such maker, for the purpose of negotiation, on the back or face thereof or on a slip of paper annexed thereto, or so signs for the same purpose a stamped paper intended to be completed as a negotiable instrument, he is said to indorse the same, and is called the “indorser”.

¶135

27. Section 56 of the Act speaks of indorsement for part

¶136

of some due-

¶137

‘No writing on a negotiable instrument is valid for the purpose of negotiations if such writing purports to transfer only a part o the amount appearing to be due on the instrument, but where such amount has been partly paid, a note to that effect may be endorsed on the instrument, which may then be negotiated for the balance.’

¶138

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has categorically held as under:

¶139

“Under Section 56 read with Section 15 of the Act, an endorsement may be made by recording the part-payment of the debt in a cheque or in a note appended to the cheque. When such an endorsement is made, the instrument could still be used to negotiate the balance amount. If the endorsed cheque when presented for encashment of the balance amount is dishonoured, then the drawee can take

¶140

¶141

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶142

recourse to the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Thus, when a part-payment of the debt is made after the cheque was drawn but before the cheque is encashed, such payment must be endorsed on the cheque under Section 56 of the Act. The cheque cannot be presented for encashment without recording the part-payment. If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence under Section 138 would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. (emphasis supplied).”

¶143

In this case also, as narrated above, as per the pleadings and evidence of PW-1 complainant, there is a part payment. The cheques were for Rs.40,00,000/and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively and balance out of Rs.51,00,000/was paid in cash. Before presenting the said cheques, certain amounts through RTGS was paid to the complainant through his banker and even thereafter also, certain payments were made. Thus, in all Rs.24,75,000/- was paid by the accused to the complainant and the balance is stated as Rs.26,25,000/-. The principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court stated supra are squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. So therefore, in view of discussion made above, the

¶144

¶145

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶146

offence under Section 138 of the Act is not attracted as per the provisions under Section 138 of the Act. The cheques which were dishonoured do not represented a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation. The accused being the drawer of the cheques paid part of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is presented for encashment, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque. When a part of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, the said two cheques in both these cases were not endorsed as prescribed under Section 56 of the Act. The cheque encashed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance. Then only the offence under Section 138 of the Act is attracted. As petitioner/accused has made part payment after the debt was incurred, the offence is not attracted and it cannot be said that accused has committed offence under Section 138 of the Act. Thus, the conditions stipulated under Section 138 of the Act are not fulfilled by the complainant. Therefore, the revision petitions so filed by the accused deserve to be allowed. Consequentially, the accused in both the cases is entitled for

¶147

¶148

Crl.R.P. No.6/2016 c/w Crl.R.P. No.1362/2015

¶149

acquittal. However, liberty is very much available to the complainant to pursue his remedy of recovery of the balance by appropriate recourse to law. Resultantly, I pass the following

¶150

ORDER

¶151

i) Criminal Revision Petition No.6/2016 and Criminal Revision Petition No.1362/2015 filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. are allowed.

¶152

ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the 42^nd ACMM in C.C.Nos.20048/2011 and 20049/2011 confirmed in Crl.A.No.1292/2014 and 1293/2014 are hereby set aside.

¶153

iii) Consequentially, accused is acquitted from the charges leveled under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶154

iv) His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.

¶155

v) Send back the Trial Court and appellate Court records forthwith along with copy of this judgment.

¶156

Sd/JUDGE

¶157

Sk/Jm/-

M/S Nazama Traders v. M/S Arihant Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Nazama Traders v. M/S Arihant Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Varavinayak Ventures Vs Rajesh Sharma

The Managing Director/Director Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Srinivasa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Chethana Shetty Vs Rohan Monteiro

Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

Jagadeesh C K Vs Pratheesh K H