The High Court Common Judgment disposed of seven criminal revisions filed by accused persons challenging judgments on convicted offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifically cheque dishonour cases.
Criminal revision cases dismissed with observation that sentences shall run concurrently.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.Nos.901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908 & 916 of 2005
COMMON JUDGMENT:
In all these revisions, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
While disposing of these batch of cases, for convenience sake, it is suffice to note briefly the facts which are pertained to Crl.Rc.No.906 of 2005.
That revision is directed against judgment dated 24.10.2002 in Crl.A.No.367 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kadapa, whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge confirmed conviction but modified sentence imposed in C.C.No.186 of 1998 dated 19.11.1999 on the file of the Court of First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur to that of payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- from Rs.8,000/-.
The petitioner in Crl.Rc.No.906 of 2005 is the accused in the calendar case and appellant in the appeal whereas the second respondent herein is the complainant in the calendar case and second respondent in the appeal. For convenience, I refer them as arrayed in the calendar case.
The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). According to the complainant, the accused issued a cheque (Ex.P1) for a sum of Rs.99,751/- dated 27.4.1998 in favour of him (the complainant) in respect of a legally existing debt, but it was dishonoured and notice given under Section 138 of the Act was not complied with.
The defence taken up by the accused is that using force, the complainant obtained his signature on a blank cheque and there was no legally enforceable debt and no notice was served on him under Section 138 of the Act and the claim is barred by limitation.
The Courts below upheld the claim of the complainant and dismissed the claim of the accused on the following grounds.
The accused failed to establish the plea of obtaining his signature on the cheque by force and cover with the notice sent to the address of the accused was returned and it should be deemed that there was proper service of the notice and the plea of bar of limitation was not established and consequently upheld the claim of the complainant.
The question that arises for consideration is as to whether there was compliance of the required formalities or there are grounds to quash the proceedings as prayed for?
D.W.1, son of the accused deposed in accordance with the pleas taken by the accused with regards to the cheque and existence of legally enforceable debt. He deposed that he filled the name of the party, amount and date in Ex.P1, by reason of which, there was no privity of contract between the accused and the complainant.
Admittedly, the cheque contains the signature of the accused. By virtue of Section 138 of the Act, it is to be presumed thereby that the accused issued the cheque with regards to a legally enforceable debt. When such a presumption is there, the accused has to place necessary evidence to rebut that presumption. The evidence of D.W.1 referred is not suffice here. Though the accused is the best person to speak about those aspects, he did not choose to come to the Court and give evidence to uphold his claim of non-existence of legally existing debt, for which adverse inference is to be drawn. D.W.1 did not specifically deny that there was business transaction between the accused and the complainant. Therefore, the presumption is not rebutted to uphold the claim of the accused. Further, Ex.P6-returned cover shows that the same was returned with endorsement “shop of the accused” was closed. There is no dispute that the address given thereon represents the correct address of the accused only. Therefore, it is to be presumed that there was service of notice by virtue of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Further, in fact even though it is pleaded that the claim was barred by
limitation, the same has not been substantiated by the accused. For the foregoing reasons, all the criminal revision cases are dismissed with observation that the sentences imposed in all the cases shall run concurrently. Further, it is represented that the accused in Crl.Rc.No.901 of 2005 had undergone the sentence imposed against him which is not disputed, therefore the question of his undergoing any sentence further does not arise at all.
_________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 14.8.2012 DA
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
Crl.Rc.Nos.901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908 & 916 of 2009
14.8.2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
Crl.Rc.Nos.901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908 & 916 of 2009
Date: .8.2012
Between:
.. Petitioners/Accused
And
.. Respondents
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there was compliance of the required formalities or grounds to quash the proceedings.
Whether the presumption under Section 138 of the Act regarding legally enforceable debt was rebutted by the accused.
Whethe the notice under Section 138 of the Act was deemed served despite the return of the cover.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners/Accused
Respondents
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
