Conviction upheld for non-payment of professional fees, compensation ordered

The court affirmed the conviction and sentence under sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, directing the petitioners to pay compensation or face imprisonment. It rejected arguments of professional negligence, upheld the validity of cheques issued as security for professional fees, and determined the complaint was filed within the limitation period. The petitioners' revisional application was dismissed, and they were ordered to comply with the sentence within a month.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction and sentence u/s 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Consideration of liability and professional negligence.
3. Validity of cheques issued as security.
4. Limitation period for filing the complaint.

Summary:

1. Validity of Conviction and Sentence u/s 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The revision was against the order dated 17.12.2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the conviction and sentence by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant, failing which they would face simple imprisonment for one month each.

2. Consideration of Liability and Professional Negligence:
The petitioners contended that no liability arose to attract proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They argued that the complainant, a Chartered Accountant, neglected professional duties, and the cheques were issued as security, not for discharging legal debts. They also highlighted that the complainant did not appear in tax-related matters, resulting in ex-parte orders against the petitioner.

3. Validity of Cheques Issued as Security:
The court noted that the cheques were issued as part of a settlement for professional fees. The Supreme Court in Sunil Todi & Ors. vs The State of Gujarat & Anr. held that a cheque issued as security could mature for presentation if the underlying obligation was not fulfilled. The court found that the cheques were issued towards the complainant's professional fees, and the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. Limitation Period for Filing the Complaint:
The petitioners argued that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed two days late and no application u/s 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed for condonation of delay. The court, relying on M/s. Saketh India Ltd. vs M/s. India Securities Ltd., calculated the limitation period and found the complaint was filed within time, considering the holidays on 12.11.2011 and 13.11.2011.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the judgment and order dated 17.12.2019, dismissing the criminal appeal and upholding the conviction and sentence. The revisional application was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to comply with the sentence within a month, failing which they would serve the default sentence. All connected applications were disposed of, and the interim order was vacated.

---