2022 (9) TMI 992 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court affirms conviction for dishonoring cheque under Section 138

N. Senthil Kumar Versus M. Kalaiselvi Ramanikanth

The High Court of Madras upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused for dishonoring a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ... Dishonor of Cheque - existence of debt payable by the accused or not - allegation is that subject cheque given as security was misused by the complainant after two years - Section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the complainant firm M/s Rishaba Poly Packs is owned by one M.Kalaiselvi Ramanikanth. She through her power agent S.Rajesh has filed the complaint. The power of attorney deed is Ex.P-1. He has deposed before the Court and has marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8, to prove that the cheque Ex.P2 was issued for the debt payable as per the ledger account Ex.P-8. The revision petitioner herein though received statutory notice has not replied to it. He has not filed any document to rebut the evidence relied by the complainant. The grounds of revision does not disclose any error or illegality to interfere the judgment of the Courts below under the revisional jurisdiction. In this case, Ex.P-8 the ledger accounts extract maintained in the course of business proves the debt payable by the accused to the complainant. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in this revision petition. This Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Issues:Accused found guilty of dishonoring a cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Conviction and sentence upheld by lower courts - Revision petition filed challenging the judgment.Analysis:1. Conviction and Sentence Upheld:- The accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque issued towards the sale consideration of polythene bags.- The trial court and the appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding the accused guilty.2. Grounds of Revision Petition:- The revision petition contended that the lower courts did not properly consider the evidence and erred in holding the accused guilty.- Various grounds were raised, including lack of proper evidence regarding delivery of goods, misuse of the cheque, and failure to examine key witnesses.3. Legal Arguments and Precedents:- The defense cited judgments to argue that the complaint filed through a power of attorney who lacks knowledge of the transaction is not maintainable.- Reference was made to cases where doubts were raised about the consideration passed and the burden of proof on the complainant to establish the debt.4. Complainant's Position:- The complainant provided detailed evidence of the debt owed by the accused, including the cheque issued, its return, and the statutory notice sent.- The complainant's power agent testified about the transaction and presented documentary evidence to support the claim.5. Court's Evaluation and Decision:- The court found that the complainant had established the debt payable by the accused through ledger accounts and other evidence.- The court rejected the grounds of revision, noting that the accused failed to rebut the evidence presented by the complainant.- Precedents were distinguished, and it was held that the name of the payee written in different ink does not render the cheque invalid per se.6. Dismissal of Revision Petition:- The court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the findings of the lower courts and directing the accused to serve the remaining sentence.- It was emphasized that the revision grounds did not demonstrate any error or illegality warranting interference with the lower courts' judgments.In conclusion, the High Court of Madras upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused for dishonoring a cheque, dismissing the revision petition on the grounds that the lower courts' findings were supported by evidence and legal principles.