2017 (2) TMI 1298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.330 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur. Trial Court, under judgment dated 16.07.2015, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to 6 months S.I. and to pay compensation of Rs. 35,65,356/- to the complainant. There against, petitioner preferred C.A.No.46 of 2015 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, which came to be dismissed under judgment dated 07.04.2016. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 4. This revision is to be allowed on the sole consideration that neither in the statutory notice nor in the complaint or in the chief examination of the complainan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....142, D.N.144, D.N.145, D.N.146 & 2981 respectively. Thus in order to pay and discharge the said valid and legal liability you have issued above mentioned three cheques total amounting to Rs. 46,65,356/- (In words Forty Six Lacs Sixty Five Thousand & Three Hundred & Fifty Six only). The above all cheques are drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Hosur Branch, Hosur 635109 and are signed by you for and on behalf of M/s.SVM Auto Products." 5. It is only in the course of cross-examination that the complainant has admitted to the invoices marked as Ex.D1 which inform the particulars of payment made by petitioner. Similar situation has received consideration in the order of the Delhi High Court in M/s.Alliance Infrastructure Project Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner to make payment of the whole of the amount of the cheque. The complainant/respondent did not even refer to the substantial payment which he had received by way of RTGS. To ask the drawer of the cheque to make payment of Rs. 49,47,600/- despite having earlier received a sum of Rs. 16,50,000/- against that very cheque is nothing but a dishonest conduct. Had the petitioner complied with the demands made in this notice, it would have been compelled to later on chase the complainant for recovery of the excess amount paid by it and had the complainant not paid the excess amount received by him, the petitioner would also have been compelled to initiate legal proceedings against him. Therefore, a notice of demand which requires the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....more than the actual amount payable by him though addition of some other demands in the notice by itself would not render such a notice illegal or invalid. 17. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I hold that the complaint, subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.2225/2009 is liable to be quashed because the complainant presented the cheque for encashment of the whole amount of Rs. 49,47,600/- though the amount due to him on the date of the presentation of the cheque was Rs. 32,9600/- and he also demanded the whole of the amount of Rs. 49,47,600/- as principal sum without even indicating the principal amount due to him under the cheque was Rs. 32,97,600/- and without even referring to the part-payment of Rs. 16,50,000/- which he....