The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the appellant failed to prove the cheques were issued for the balance repayment after vehicle repossession, rejecting reliance on surmises.
The criminal appeal is dismissed; the accused is confirmed.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.12.2017
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
Crl. A. No. 305 of 2007
M/s.GMAC-TCFC Finance Limited, (Now known as GMAC Financial Services Indian Ltd.,) Rep. By its Power of Attorney Agent, Mr.Subash Chandra Bose Arihant 'E' Park, II Floor, No.117/1, L.B.Road, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. .. Appellant /Vs/ I.Sabastian, Munuswamy Goundar Street, Kolathur, Mettur Taluk, Salem 626 303. .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as against the Order of acquittal dated 11.01.2007 passed in C.C.No.5077 of 2003 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Madras.
JUDGMENT
Limited represented by its power of attorney Mr.Subash Chandra Bose is as follows :-
2
The appellant is doing business of finance for purchase of motor vehicles. The respondent/accused I.Sabastian residing at Munuswamy Goundar Street, Kolathur, Mettur Taluk, Salem 626 303 entered into a hire purchase agreement with the appellant through an agreement dated 21.09.2000 for purchase of an Ambassdor car and the appellant sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,86,400/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Four Hundred Only) to the respondent on the equated monthly instalments at Rs.7796/-. The respondent committed default in paying the monthly instalments and therefore the appellant seized the car and sold the same after giving due intimation to the respondent. The accused, thereafter issued three cheques which are extracted hereunder,
| Sl.No | Cheque No. | Date Amount (in rupees) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | 811377 | 15.01.2003 7796/- |
| 2. | 811378 | 15.02.2003 7796/- |
| 3. | 811379 | 15.03.2003 7796/- |
Chennai the cheques were returned for the reason “insufficient funds”.
The appellant issued a demand notice dated 22.04.2003 (Ex.P.6) and the same was received by the respondent as evidenced by the postal acknowledgment card (Ex.P.7). Inspite of receipt of the said notice,
3
the respondent did not come forward to make good the payment and did not also issue any reply notice.
of Criminal Procedure, before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Madras against the respodent for an offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. One witness was examined on the side of the appellant and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent. The learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras after appraising the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused U/s 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, aggrieved by which the appellant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
the well established principles of law.
4
Saidapet, Madras had observed that once the vehicle was repossessed and sold by the finance company the hire purchase agreement comes to an end and the complainant cannot present any of the post dated cheques for acknowledgment. The complainant's contention that these three cheques were issued by the respondent only for repayment of balance amount towards the loan amount has not been substantiated by adducing acceptable evidence. A mere perusal of the cheques would clearly reveal that these cheques were issued by the respondent http://www.judis.nic.in towards equated monthly instalments. The observation of the learned
5
XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras that the cheques were issued only at the time of execution of hire purchase agreement is based on the evidence on record.
Saidapet, Madras had given cogent reasons for acquitting the respondent U/s 255(1) code of Criminal Procedure and I do not find
any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras.
the respondent is confirmed and the appal is dismissed.
dismissed.
6
R. HEMALATHA, J.
ksa
Speaking/Non speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ksa
To
1. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras .
2. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Crl. A. No. 305 of 2007
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused when the cheque was for monthly installments post-repossession of the vehicle.
Whether the finance company substantiated its claim that the cheques were issued specifically for the balance amount after vehicle sale.
Whether available evidence and presumptions under Section 138 NI Act justify overturning the acquittal in this appeal.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. GMAC-TCFC Finance Limited
I. Sabastian
R. HEMALATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
