High Court Madras disposed of a Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against convictions for cheque dishonour. The Court dismissed the revision, holding that the notice sufficiently identified the instrument in a single-transaction scenario.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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: 01.08.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM
Crl.R.C.No.1281 of 2010
and
M.P.No.2 of 2010
1.M/s.Lakshmi Apparels
represented by its Partner,
Sundarrajan
10/205, NSK Nagar,
Opp. to Murugan Mills,
Palladam Road, Tiruppur.
2.Sundarrajan
S/o.Nanjan .. Petitioner
vs.
L.Selvaraj
S/o.Lakshmanan .. Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court V, Tiruppur, passed in C.A.No.410 of 2008 on 26.08.2010 confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruppur, passed in S.T.C.No.3944 of 2006 on 18.11.2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Karthick Raja
2
O R D E R
Though learned counsel for petitioners had informed no instructions, he,
upon request by this Court, has graciously assisted the Court. This Court records its appreciation.
convicting the petitioners for offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
and sentencing second petitioner to 1 year S.I. and to pay compensation in a
sum of Rs.3,00,0000/-.
second petitioner, on behalf of first petitioner company, borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant on 20.09.2000 and a cheque bearing No.024094 dated 28.05.2001 in a sum of Rs.4,57,000/- drawn on Indus Ind
Bank, Avinashi, stood issued to him by petitioners towards repayment of borrowing, which upon presentation was returned unpaid for the reason 'funds insufficient'. Respondent/complainant caused statutory notice and following the procedure envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint had been filed. The complaint was taken on file in S.T.C.No.3944 of 2006 learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruppur.
3
letter of second petitioner and Ex.P5 - statutory notice, respondent/ complainant had, instead of informing the cheque number, informed the bank account number and therefore, petitioners had not been properly informed of the instrument under which their liability arose. Learned counsel also referred to judgment in C.A.No.187 of 2003 marked as Ex.D2 towards submitting that
4
such Court had recorded the settlement arrived at between parties on an earlier occasion.
submissions.
consideration in a case of a series of transactions wherein doubt on which of
the transactions the cheque stood issued, would arise. In the instant case of single transaction, there is no room for such doubt. The observation regards settlement found in Ex.D2 - judgment in C.A.No.187 of 2003 would have to be read as settlement arrived at partly by effecting payment of cash and partly by issue of cheque which has given rise to the action in S.T.C.No.3944 of 2006
learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruppur.
The Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.08.2017
Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gm
5
To
6
C.T. SELVAM, J
gm
Crl.R.C.No.1281 of 2010
01.08.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether failure to specify the cheque number in the statutory notice vitiates the prosecution in a single-transaction case.
Whether the revision against the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act succeeds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.A.No.187 of 2003Referred¶28
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Lakshmi Apparels / Sundarrajan
L. Selvaraj
C.T. Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court