Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, as the validity of a cheque is only for 6 months from
the date of issuance, the implied authorisation for filling
up the cheque should certainly be within the limitation of
six months and not more than the period of limitation. As it
has been proved that the undated cheque was handed over one
year and six months prior to the date of the cheque, I am of
the considered view that the dishonour of the same would not
create any criminal liability on the revision
petitioner/accused. The courts below without considering
the legal aspect under the Negotiable Instruments Act and
also the factual circumstances, have given the concurrent
finding which has to be construed as a manifest error of law
and to meet the ends of justice, it warrants the
interference of this Court. Accordingly, I find it
reasonable to allow this criminal revision petition.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2006
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
Crl.R.C.No.1439 OF 2004
Ramakannan Vs Chettiar and Co.,
This criminal revision is directed against the judgment
of conviction and sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal No.11
of 2004, dated 02.08.2004 confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed by its judgment in C.C.No.5482 of 2000
dated 18.02.2003.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in the case
registered on the complaint given by the respondent herein
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
According to the respondent/complainant, towards the
business transaction, the revision petitioner/accused had to
pay a sum of Rs.1,14,471/- to the respondent, for a period
from 09.05.1998 to 09.09.1998 and towards part payment, the
revision petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.628595 dated
28.03.2000 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Vadapalani Branch, for a
sum of Rs.83,407/- in favour of the respondent/complainant
and requested the complainant to present it for collection
on 28.03.2000. Accordingly, when the cheque was presented
by the respondent herein, through Bank of Rajasthan Limited,
N.S.C Bose Road, Chennai, the same was returned by the
Vijaya bank on 29.03.2000 with an endorsement, 'Funds
insufficient' and therefore, the respondent issued a legal
notice, the original of Ex.P.4. Though the notice was
received by the revision petitioner, he had not chosen to
send any reply. Hence, the respondent herein lodged a
criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
3. On the side of the respondent/complainant, the
complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 apart from
examining the Assistant Manager of Vijaya Bank, Vadapalani,
as P.W.2 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.8 were also marked. The
dishonoured cheque bearing No.628595 for a sum of Rs.83,407/-
was also marked as Ex.P.3.
4. According to the revision petitioner, the undated
cheque was issued by him only as a collateral security on
09.09.1998 and nearly after a lapse of two years, the
respondent herein had filled up the cheque with the date
28.03.2000 and misused the same. Therefore, the complaint
given by respondent, itself was not legally maintainable.
5. On the side of the revision petitioner/accused, the
Managers of Vijaya bank and Bank of Rajasthan were examined
as D.W.1 and D.W.2. The certified copy of the statement of
accounts obtained from Vijaya Bank was marked as Ex.D.1 and
the statement of account obtained from Bank of Rajasthan was
marked, as Ex.D.2.
6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court convicted the revision petitioner/accused, under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against which
the petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional
Sessions Judge, who confirmed the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal,
aggrieved by which this criminal revision has been
preferred.
7. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner
and the respondent herein were having business dealings.
According to the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, the dishonoured cheque Ex.P.3 was issued only an
undated cheque as security for the amount payable by the
revision petitioner, as on 09.09.1998, and the amount was
also paid, but the cheque was misused by the
respondent/complainant.
8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner, drew the attention of this
Court to the Bills, Ex.P.2 series, issued by the
respondent/complainant, to the revision petitioner, wherein
at page-22 of the typed set, Bill No.782 dated September
4th, 1998, the cheque has been referred as Vijaya bank
cheque No.628595. Similarly, in cash bill No.798 dated
September 9th, 1998, the same has been stated as Vijaya
Bank, cheque No.628595. Further, the respondent/complainant
in his evidence, during cross-examination, has clearly
admitted that the aforesaid bills issued by the respondent
dated 04.09.1998 and 09.09.1998 contains cheque No.628595.
The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/complainant, has also not disputed the fact that
the aforesaid cheque number available in the printed cash
bills dated 04.09.1998 and 9.9.1998. The learned counsel
for the petitioner, by handing over the signed cheque, the
revision petitioner had authorised the respondent to fill it
up and present the same for payment and therefore, he cannot
question the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that as
per the Negotiable Instruments Act, a cheque has to be
presented within a period of six months. Here in this case,
as admitted by the respondent herein, the cheque was handed
over on 09.09.1998 itself, but strangely after filled up the
date as 28.03.2000, it was presented for payment after one
year and six months. Therefore, according to the revision
petitioner, the respondent cannot fix the criminal liability
on the revision petitioner, after a lapse of one year and
six months, after the issuance of the undated cheque.
9. As contended by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, Ex.P.3 cheque was not a post dated cheque. On
the other hand, it was an undated cheque handed over on
09.09.1998 itself. It is seen that the date on the cheque
was not filled up by pen, though the name of payee, amount
in figures and words were written by pen. Strangely a
rubber date stamp has been used to affix for the date
28.03.1999. Even in the judgments of the trial court, as
well as the first appellate court, it has been held that the
disputed document is an undated cheque and not a post dated
cheque. Therefore, it has to be decided in the revision, as
to whether a complaint dated 24.05.2004 under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on an undated cheque
that was handed over by the revision petitioner, on
09.09.1998 would be legally maintainable?
10. In order to enlighten this Court on the legal
aspect, the following decisions were cited:
i. Angu Parameswari Textiles (P) Ltd., and others v. Sri
Rajam And Co. (2001-Vol.105 Company Cases -105)
ii. M.S.Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala and
another (2006 AIR SCW 4652)
iii. Y.Sreelatha @ Roja Vs. Mukanchand Bothra (2002-1-
LW(Crl.)271)
iv. M/s. Cement Agencies rep. By its Managing Partner,
Vijayawada v. Vijaya Babu and Another (1997(4)Crimes 273)
v. Narayana Menon Alias Mani Vs. State of Kerala and
another (2006(6) SCC 39)
vi. ShriIshar Alloys Steels Ltd., v. Jayaswals NECO Ltd.,
(AIR 2001 SC 1161)
11. In addition to the aforesaid arguments, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that as
per the findings of the trial Court, as confirmed by the
appellate court, the total amount payable by the respondent
was Rs.1,14,471/- and under Ex.P.2, Rs.55,907/- has been
paid to the respondent/complainant and the balance would be
Rs.58,564/- and therefore, the cheque for Rs.83,407/- would
certainly be for a higher amount, due and payable on the
alleged dated, 09.09.1998.
12. In support of his contention, the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner has cited the decision reported
in Angu Parameswari Textiles (P) Ltd., and others v. Sri
Rajam And Co. (2001-Vol.105 Company Cases -105), wherein
this Court has held that cheque must be issued towards
discharge of whole or part of the debt and if a cheque is
issued for a higher amount, then the amount due or payable,
due to the dishonour, the cheque would not create any cause
of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Here in this case, as found by the courts below, the
amount due and payable would be less than the amount
specified in the dishonoured cheque as contended by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited a
decision of this Court reported in Y.Sreelatha @ Roja Vs.
Mukanchand Bothra (2002-1-LW(Crl.)271), wherein this Court
has held thus:
"As per Section 118, 138 and 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court "shall
presume" the liability of the drawer of the
cheque for the amount for which it was drawn on
accepting the consideration."
"until the contrary is proved, the following
presumptions shall be made;
a. of consideration - that every negotiable
instrument was made or drawn for consideration,
and that every such instrument, when it has been
accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred,
was accepted, endorsed, negotiated for
transferred for consideration."
Here in this case the revision petitioner himself has
not examined himself as a witness, but in support of his
contention, he examined the Manager of Vijaya Bank and the
Manager of bank of Rajasthan in order to substantiate that
the amounts were realised by the respondent, through the
said banks by producing Exs.D.1 and D.2, statements of
accounts relating to the banks.
14. The Honourable Supreme Court of India has held in
the decision reported in M.S.Narayana Menon alias Mani v.
State of Kerala and another (2006 AIR SCW 4652) that if
the accused has discharged his initial burden, the burden is
reverted back to the prosecution and on the failure of the
respondent to discharge the burden so shifted on him, and in
view of the same, the conviction of accused was set aside by
the Honourable Apex Court. In the said case, the cheque was
issued for the purpose of discounting which appeared to be
probable and that the accused had discharge his initial
burden, and the court held in such circumstances, that the
burden is shifted on the complainant and failure to
discharge the burden so shifted on the complainant, resulted
the conviction of the accused, being set aside.
15. Here in this case, admittedly the undated cheque
was signed and handed over on 09.09.1998, to the
respondent/complainant. It is not in dispute that a cheque
should be presented in the bank for collection, as per the
Negotiable Instruments Act, within a period of six months
from the date of issuance of the cheque. As contended by
the learned counsel for the respondent, the date of the
cheque has to be considered for computing the period of
limitation. Here in this case, it is not a post dated
cheque, but only an undated cheque and as per the evidence,
it had been handed over on 09.09.1998 itself, but presented
nearly after one year and six months from the aforesaid date
by filling up the date as 28.03.2000, by way of affixing
rubber stamp.
16. In support of his contention, the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner has cited a decision reported in
M/s.Cement Agencies rep. By its managing partner, Vijayawada
vs. Vijaya Babu and Another (1997(4) Crimes 273) rendered by
the Andra Pradesh High Court, wherein the Honourable High
court of Andra Pradesh has held as follows:
"If time barred cheques can be encashed even
after the expiry of the specified time, it will
create so many anomalous situations which are
likely to be used by unscrupulous litigants.
For all these reasons, the appeal fails and it is
accordingly dismissed."
17. As per the Negotiable Instruments Act, limitation
has been prescribed and as such, though a signed cheque
would lead to the presumption of authorising the drawee to
fill it up, and present it for payment, the limitation of
six months prescribed under the Act, cannot be altered by
way of an undated cheque being filled up after one year and
six months. In this case, it has been proved that the
undated cheque was handed over on 09.09.1998 to one year and
six months prior to the date available in the cheque, and
therefore, it cannot be legally presumed that the revision
petitioner had authorised the respondent to fill it up and
present it at any time even after the statutory period of
limitation, according to his convenience. This Court is of
the considered view that filling up an undated cheque
against the limitation prescribed under the Negotiable
Instruments Act would be against the legislative mandate of
the said Act and would create an anomalous situation likely
to be misused by unscrupulous litigants. Therefore, I am of
the view that the undated cheque issued and handed over on
09.09.1998 would not create the presumption that the
revision petitioner had authorised the respondent to fill
up the date as 28.03.2000, one and half years after the same
was handed over to be presented for payment, and therefore,
the alleged cause of action based on Ex.P.3 is not
sustainable to maintain the criminal complaint against the
revision petitioner.
18. Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, as the validity of a cheque is only for 6 months from
the date of issuance, the implied authorisation for filling
up the cheque should certainly be within the limitation of
six months and not more than the period of limitation. As it
has been proved that the undated cheque was handed over one
year and six months prior to the date of the cheque, I am of
the considered view that the dishonour of the same would not
create any criminal liability on the revision
petitioner/accused. The courts below without considering
the legal aspect under the Negotiable Instruments Act and
also the factual circumstances, have given the concurrent
finding which has to be construed as a manifest error of law
and to meet the ends of justice, it warrants the
interference of this Court. Accordingly, I find it
reasonable to allow this criminal revision petition.
19. In the result, without prejudice to the civil
right, if any available to the respondent, the criminal
revision petition is allowed and accordingly the conviction
and sentence imposed by the Courts below are set aside and
the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the revision
petitioner is ordered to be refunded to him.
Print Page
Act, as the validity of a cheque is only for 6 months from
the date of issuance, the implied authorisation for filling
up the cheque should certainly be within the limitation of
six months and not more than the period of limitation. As it
has been proved that the undated cheque was handed over one
year and six months prior to the date of the cheque, I am of
the considered view that the dishonour of the same would not
create any criminal liability on the revision
petitioner/accused. The courts below without considering
the legal aspect under the Negotiable Instruments Act and
also the factual circumstances, have given the concurrent
finding which has to be construed as a manifest error of law
and to meet the ends of justice, it warrants the
interference of this Court. Accordingly, I find it
reasonable to allow this criminal revision petition.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2006
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
Crl.R.C.No.1439 OF 2004
Ramakannan Vs Chettiar and Co.,
This criminal revision is directed against the judgment
of conviction and sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal No.11
of 2004, dated 02.08.2004 confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed by its judgment in C.C.No.5482 of 2000
dated 18.02.2003.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in the case
registered on the complaint given by the respondent herein
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
According to the respondent/complainant, towards the
business transaction, the revision petitioner/accused had to
pay a sum of Rs.1,14,471/- to the respondent, for a period
from 09.05.1998 to 09.09.1998 and towards part payment, the
revision petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.628595 dated
28.03.2000 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Vadapalani Branch, for a
sum of Rs.83,407/- in favour of the respondent/complainant
and requested the complainant to present it for collection
on 28.03.2000. Accordingly, when the cheque was presented
by the respondent herein, through Bank of Rajasthan Limited,
N.S.C Bose Road, Chennai, the same was returned by the
Vijaya bank on 29.03.2000 with an endorsement, 'Funds
insufficient' and therefore, the respondent issued a legal
notice, the original of Ex.P.4. Though the notice was
received by the revision petitioner, he had not chosen to
send any reply. Hence, the respondent herein lodged a
criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
3. On the side of the respondent/complainant, the
complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 apart from
examining the Assistant Manager of Vijaya Bank, Vadapalani,
as P.W.2 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.8 were also marked. The
dishonoured cheque bearing No.628595 for a sum of Rs.83,407/-
was also marked as Ex.P.3.
4. According to the revision petitioner, the undated
cheque was issued by him only as a collateral security on
09.09.1998 and nearly after a lapse of two years, the
respondent herein had filled up the cheque with the date
28.03.2000 and misused the same. Therefore, the complaint
given by respondent, itself was not legally maintainable.
5. On the side of the revision petitioner/accused, the
Managers of Vijaya bank and Bank of Rajasthan were examined
as D.W.1 and D.W.2. The certified copy of the statement of
accounts obtained from Vijaya Bank was marked as Ex.D.1 and
the statement of account obtained from Bank of Rajasthan was
marked, as Ex.D.2.
6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court convicted the revision petitioner/accused, under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against which
the petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional
Sessions Judge, who confirmed the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal,
aggrieved by which this criminal revision has been
preferred.
7. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner
and the respondent herein were having business dealings.
According to the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, the dishonoured cheque Ex.P.3 was issued only an
undated cheque as security for the amount payable by the
revision petitioner, as on 09.09.1998, and the amount was
also paid, but the cheque was misused by the
respondent/complainant.
8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner, drew the attention of this
Court to the Bills, Ex.P.2 series, issued by the
respondent/complainant, to the revision petitioner, wherein
at page-22 of the typed set, Bill No.782 dated September
4th, 1998, the cheque has been referred as Vijaya bank
cheque No.628595. Similarly, in cash bill No.798 dated
September 9th, 1998, the same has been stated as Vijaya
Bank, cheque No.628595. Further, the respondent/complainant
in his evidence, during cross-examination, has clearly
admitted that the aforesaid bills issued by the respondent
dated 04.09.1998 and 09.09.1998 contains cheque No.628595.
The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/complainant, has also not disputed the fact that
the aforesaid cheque number available in the printed cash
bills dated 04.09.1998 and 9.9.1998. The learned counsel
for the petitioner, by handing over the signed cheque, the
revision petitioner had authorised the respondent to fill it
up and present the same for payment and therefore, he cannot
question the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that as
per the Negotiable Instruments Act, a cheque has to be
presented within a period of six months. Here in this case,
as admitted by the respondent herein, the cheque was handed
over on 09.09.1998 itself, but strangely after filled up the
date as 28.03.2000, it was presented for payment after one
year and six months. Therefore, according to the revision
petitioner, the respondent cannot fix the criminal liability
on the revision petitioner, after a lapse of one year and
six months, after the issuance of the undated cheque.
9. As contended by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, Ex.P.3 cheque was not a post dated cheque. On
the other hand, it was an undated cheque handed over on
09.09.1998 itself. It is seen that the date on the cheque
was not filled up by pen, though the name of payee, amount
in figures and words were written by pen. Strangely a
rubber date stamp has been used to affix for the date
28.03.1999. Even in the judgments of the trial court, as
well as the first appellate court, it has been held that the
disputed document is an undated cheque and not a post dated
cheque. Therefore, it has to be decided in the revision, as
to whether a complaint dated 24.05.2004 under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on an undated cheque
that was handed over by the revision petitioner, on
09.09.1998 would be legally maintainable?
10. In order to enlighten this Court on the legal
aspect, the following decisions were cited:
i. Angu Parameswari Textiles (P) Ltd., and others v. Sri
Rajam And Co. (2001-Vol.105 Company Cases -105)
ii. M.S.Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala and
another (2006 AIR SCW 4652)
iii. Y.Sreelatha @ Roja Vs. Mukanchand Bothra (2002-1-
LW(Crl.)271)
iv. M/s. Cement Agencies rep. By its Managing Partner,
Vijayawada v. Vijaya Babu and Another (1997(4)Crimes 273)
v. Narayana Menon Alias Mani Vs. State of Kerala and
another (2006(6) SCC 39)
vi. ShriIshar Alloys Steels Ltd., v. Jayaswals NECO Ltd.,
(AIR 2001 SC 1161)
11. In addition to the aforesaid arguments, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that as
per the findings of the trial Court, as confirmed by the
appellate court, the total amount payable by the respondent
was Rs.1,14,471/- and under Ex.P.2, Rs.55,907/- has been
paid to the respondent/complainant and the balance would be
Rs.58,564/- and therefore, the cheque for Rs.83,407/- would
certainly be for a higher amount, due and payable on the
alleged dated, 09.09.1998.
12. In support of his contention, the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner has cited the decision reported
in Angu Parameswari Textiles (P) Ltd., and others v. Sri
Rajam And Co. (2001-Vol.105 Company Cases -105), wherein
this Court has held that cheque must be issued towards
discharge of whole or part of the debt and if a cheque is
issued for a higher amount, then the amount due or payable,
due to the dishonour, the cheque would not create any cause
of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Here in this case, as found by the courts below, the
amount due and payable would be less than the amount
specified in the dishonoured cheque as contended by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited a
decision of this Court reported in Y.Sreelatha @ Roja Vs.
Mukanchand Bothra (2002-1-LW(Crl.)271), wherein this Court
has held thus:
"As per Section 118, 138 and 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court "shall
presume" the liability of the drawer of the
cheque for the amount for which it was drawn on
accepting the consideration."
"until the contrary is proved, the following
presumptions shall be made;
a. of consideration - that every negotiable
instrument was made or drawn for consideration,
and that every such instrument, when it has been
accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred,
was accepted, endorsed, negotiated for
transferred for consideration."
Here in this case the revision petitioner himself has
not examined himself as a witness, but in support of his
contention, he examined the Manager of Vijaya Bank and the
Manager of bank of Rajasthan in order to substantiate that
the amounts were realised by the respondent, through the
said banks by producing Exs.D.1 and D.2, statements of
accounts relating to the banks.
14. The Honourable Supreme Court of India has held in
the decision reported in M.S.Narayana Menon alias Mani v.
State of Kerala and another (2006 AIR SCW 4652) that if
the accused has discharged his initial burden, the burden is
reverted back to the prosecution and on the failure of the
respondent to discharge the burden so shifted on him, and in
view of the same, the conviction of accused was set aside by
the Honourable Apex Court. In the said case, the cheque was
issued for the purpose of discounting which appeared to be
probable and that the accused had discharge his initial
burden, and the court held in such circumstances, that the
burden is shifted on the complainant and failure to
discharge the burden so shifted on the complainant, resulted
the conviction of the accused, being set aside.
15. Here in this case, admittedly the undated cheque
was signed and handed over on 09.09.1998, to the
respondent/complainant. It is not in dispute that a cheque
should be presented in the bank for collection, as per the
Negotiable Instruments Act, within a period of six months
from the date of issuance of the cheque. As contended by
the learned counsel for the respondent, the date of the
cheque has to be considered for computing the period of
limitation. Here in this case, it is not a post dated
cheque, but only an undated cheque and as per the evidence,
it had been handed over on 09.09.1998 itself, but presented
nearly after one year and six months from the aforesaid date
by filling up the date as 28.03.2000, by way of affixing
rubber stamp.
16. In support of his contention, the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner has cited a decision reported in
M/s.Cement Agencies rep. By its managing partner, Vijayawada
vs. Vijaya Babu and Another (1997(4) Crimes 273) rendered by
the Andra Pradesh High Court, wherein the Honourable High
court of Andra Pradesh has held as follows:
"If time barred cheques can be encashed even
after the expiry of the specified time, it will
create so many anomalous situations which are
likely to be used by unscrupulous litigants.
For all these reasons, the appeal fails and it is
accordingly dismissed."
17. As per the Negotiable Instruments Act, limitation
has been prescribed and as such, though a signed cheque
would lead to the presumption of authorising the drawee to
fill it up, and present it for payment, the limitation of
six months prescribed under the Act, cannot be altered by
way of an undated cheque being filled up after one year and
six months. In this case, it has been proved that the
undated cheque was handed over on 09.09.1998 to one year and
six months prior to the date available in the cheque, and
therefore, it cannot be legally presumed that the revision
petitioner had authorised the respondent to fill it up and
present it at any time even after the statutory period of
limitation, according to his convenience. This Court is of
the considered view that filling up an undated cheque
against the limitation prescribed under the Negotiable
Instruments Act would be against the legislative mandate of
the said Act and would create an anomalous situation likely
to be misused by unscrupulous litigants. Therefore, I am of
the view that the undated cheque issued and handed over on
09.09.1998 would not create the presumption that the
revision petitioner had authorised the respondent to fill
up the date as 28.03.2000, one and half years after the same
was handed over to be presented for payment, and therefore,
the alleged cause of action based on Ex.P.3 is not
sustainable to maintain the criminal complaint against the
revision petitioner.
18. Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, as the validity of a cheque is only for 6 months from
the date of issuance, the implied authorisation for filling
up the cheque should certainly be within the limitation of
six months and not more than the period of limitation. As it
has been proved that the undated cheque was handed over one
year and six months prior to the date of the cheque, I am of
the considered view that the dishonour of the same would not
create any criminal liability on the revision
petitioner/accused. The courts below without considering
the legal aspect under the Negotiable Instruments Act and
also the factual circumstances, have given the concurrent
finding which has to be construed as a manifest error of law
and to meet the ends of justice, it warrants the
interference of this Court. Accordingly, I find it
reasonable to allow this criminal revision petition.
19. In the result, without prejudice to the civil
right, if any available to the respondent, the criminal
revision petition is allowed and accordingly the conviction
and sentence imposed by the Courts below are set aside and
the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the revision
petitioner is ordered to be refunded to him.
No comments:
Post a Comment