TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h. In terms of the said agreement, containing an arbitration clause, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- principal amount and interest of Rs. 1,40,800/- totalling Rs. 6,40,800/- in 36 monthly equal installments meaning thereby Rs. 17,800/- x 36 = Rs.6,40,800/- 3. It is stated that in terms of the said agreement the petitioner already paid 16 installments @ 17,800/- i.e. Rs. 2,84,800/- and the balance amount of Rs. 3,56,000/- is payable to liquidate the entire dues under the agreement. 4. At the time of taking loan to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- the opposite party took 16 blank signed undated blank cheques from the petitioner, drawn on State Bank of India, Udaynarayanpur Branch, bearing cheque nos. 032693 to 032700, against account no. 20133015268 and cheque no. 121813 to 121820 drawn on the same bank in order to keep such cheques as a security measures till the loan amount is paid off under the agreement. The said car remained hypothecated to the opposite party being the financier mentioned in the R/C Book of the vehicle. 5. It is alleged that the opposite party purportedly in violations of the terms of the agreement has presented one blank signed cheque to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e opposite party/claimant took blank signed cheques from the petitioner on the understanding to keep it as a security measures until the dues under hire purchase agreement is paid off but in the instant case the opposite party purportedly used one of the signed blank cheques bearing no. 032700 by putting the date 27.07.2018 amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- for encashment towards payment of more than the dues under hire purchase agreement by resorting to the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act thereby abusing the process of law. 9. It is submitted that the Learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. Mr. Roy has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in M/s. Pioneer Drop System Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. reported in 2010 CRI. L. J. 2149. The said judgment is in respect of quashing of a proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act and not applicable to this case, as the present revision is against an order under Section 143A of the N.I. Act. 11. The order under revision is under Section 143A of the N.I. Act directing the petitioner to pay interim compensation of Rs. 4,00,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender; (b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the District, authorizing him to realize the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter. Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under Section 357. (2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. (3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realize the amount in accordance with the law relating to reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial years, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant. (5) The interim compensation payable under this Section may be recovered as if it were a fine under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) The amount of fine imposed under Section 138 or the amount of compensation awarded under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall be reduced by the amount paid or recovered as interim compensation under this section." 12. After empowering the Court to pass an order directing the accused to pay interim compensation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 143A, Sub Section (2) then mandates that such interim compensation should not exceed 20 per cent of the amount of the cheque. The period within which the interim compensation must be paid is stipulated in Sub-Section (3), while Sub-Section (4) deals with sit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. A Magistrate, therefore, cannot in the course of investigation record a confession except in the manner laid down in Section 164. The power to record the confession had obviously been given so that the confession might be proved by the record of its made in the manner laid down. If proof of the confession by other means was permissible, the whole provision of Section 164 including the safeguards contained in it for the protection of accused persons would be rendered nugatory. The Section, therefore, by conferring on Magistrates the power to record statements or confessions, by necessary implication, prohibited a Magistrate from giving oral evidence of the statements or confessions made to him." In J.N. Ganatra vs. Morvi Municipality, exercise of power of dismissal having not been done I n conformity of the Act, the same was set aside. It was stated :- "4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in r....