High Court dismissed criminal revision petition against conviction under Section 138 NI Act. Court held petitioner was liable as partner of firm whose cheque was dishonoured, finding no ground for interference.
Revision petition dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act upheld.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 830 / 2003
Ramesh Chand, S/o Snehi Lal, B/c Mahajan, R/o Vikas Paint Factory, Near I.T.I. Alwar. (Presently confined in District Jail, Alwar)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Meena
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ashish Sharma
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
22/02/2018
Petitioner had faced trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) on a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 with regard to dishonour of cheque dated 17.07.1999 in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Case of the complainant in brief is that the accused had taken loan from the complainant in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide cheque dated 25.09.1998. For repayment of loan, cheque in question had been issued by Kailash Chandra on behalf of the firm Banshidhar Sanehilal. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured by the bank as the payment had been stopped by drawer. Despite issuance of notice, petitioner had failed to pay the cheque amount in question to the complainant. Hence, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-830/2003]
was filed against the accused. During trial, complainant led his evidence in support of his case.
Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 22.11.2002 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. The other co-accused of the petitioner were absconders. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate court vide order dated 16.07.2003. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
A perusal of the cheque Exhibit-P-1 reveals that the same is signed by partner Kailash Chandra for the firm Banshidhar Sanehilal. Admittedly, petitioner is also a partner of the said firm. Being a partner of the firm, petitioner was also liable to be prosecuted on account of dishonour of the cheque in question. The cheque had not been issued by Kailash Chandra in his personal capacity but as a partner of the Firm.
Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence led on record had thus, rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act.
No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Sudha/03
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act merits interference.
Whether the petitioner was rightly prosecuted as a partner of the firm that issued the dishonoured cheque.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Chand
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
Ravi Agarwal
Sabina J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
