w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Anand v/s Step in Computer Shopee & Others

    Criminal Revision Application No.81 of 2012
    Decided On, 16 April 2013
    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.U. CHANDIWAL
    For the Applicant: Kiran M. Nagarkar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mrs. R.K. Laddha, APP, R2, S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate.


Judgment Text
Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. Heard finally.

2. The revision applicant questions conviction recorded under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act dated 21.4.2008 by learned 7th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur, confirmed in Appeal No.21/2008, however, sentence was reduced to seven days.

3. During the course of rival submissions, it transpired that the parties had earlier business transactions; hence, the matter was adjourned intermittently, to ensure compounding, however, it did not yield any result.

4. FACTS:

Complainant deals in Computers under a partnership firm. The revision applicant (accused), allegedly, purchased computers for himself and his customers, including hardware under Invoice No.SI/109 dated 19th Jan., 2003, for an amount of Rs.2,75,000/-. He had issued a cheque bearing No.19956 dated 20th Jan., 2003, covering the amount. On presentation to the Bank, the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds, this was followed by statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act dated 20th Feb., 2003. The accused / applicant replied the notice and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. The cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable liability.

5. SUBMISSIONS:

Mr.Nagarkarsays, that in the notice, cheque number was referred as 19856, however, the cheque in question bears No.19956. The signature on the cheque was taken forcefully and it was not from the Bank account of the accused. Nine cheques were taken by the complainant / respondent under coercion and they are misused.

6. FINDINGS:

The mistake in the number of cheque in statutory notice has not been dealt with in reply. It has transpired subsequently for which application Exh.25 was moved but the learned Judge did not pass any order. However, it will not defuse effect of the case as the said cheque was referred in the evidence dealt with by the revision applicant. The statutory notice was at Exh.54 while reply is at Exh.55. In the reply, the accused has denied the transaction. He claimed that one Devidas Kanje had asked the accused to purchase computers and, consequently, under a mirage, to get the commission, he acted in the transaction. The complainant had supplied four computers by preparing invoices and the accused had signed them but, according to him, it was for Devidas Kanje. Another defense was, Prithviraj Chavan, with 5/6 persons, barged at his house and obtained two signed cheques bearing No.19960 and 19856 and those two cheques are used by the complainant.

7. This stand raised by the accused applicant, does not reflect in the cross examination of complainant's witness Prithviraj. The defense in the reply notice has conveniently been abandoned. The applicant / accused did not dispute his signature on the cheque. If, indeed, the cheque was not of his account, there was no reason to get it established through Bank witness.

The typographical error in the cheque will not mitigate the situation as the accused, as stated earlier, did not dispute his signature on the cheque. Such mistake cannot be said to be material as the amount covered by the disputed cheque is correctly recorded in the statutory notice.

8. The stand of snatching nine signed cheques, argued repeatedly before this Court, does not figure anywhere. Taking survey of these facts, I do not see any error in the concurrent findings of conviction. Inspite of these odds, I desire to give some respite to accused / applicant.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
> ORDER Criminal Revision Application (No.81/2012) dismissed. Rule discharged. However, if the Revision Applicant releases the compensation amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rs. two lacs, seventy five thousand), in favour of respondent complainant upto 1st July, 2013, the conviction shall be treated as set aside and compounded in terms of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
O R