CRYSTAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES Vs. JIPS DYECHEM INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments on either side and carefully perused the case records as well as the written arguments submitted by the petitioner by its partner in person. I have also carefully gone through the references made to several decisions in the revision petition as well as in the written arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner, on being aggrieved over the inadequacy of sentence imposed upon the respondents/claimants, sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has filed this revision petition.

(3.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 2 to 4 are the directors of Jips Dyechem Private Limited and partners in Jips dyechem Industries. The said Jips Dyechem Private Limited had made an agreement with the petitioner-firm as per exhibit P-3 to run the factory of the petitioner on a monthly compensation basis and this amount was to be paid to the petitioner's bank, viz. , State Bank of India as per the undertaking signed by respondent No. 2, which has been admitted in exhibit P-1. When respondents Nos. 2 to 4 defaulted in making these payments to the State Bank of India, and that the State Bank of India brought this fact to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner demanded this overdue payments from respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Thereupon, respondent No. 1 issued four post-dated cheques in lieu of its liabilities to make the payments to the SBI signed by respondents Nos. 2 to 4, which includes cheque No- 41802 dated April 2, 1996, for Rs. 75,000 as has been admitted in exhibit P-8. These cheques were issued by the respondents from their partnership firm Jips Dyechem Industries saying that as they did not have any bank operation in their company, they were issuing post-dated cheques from their partnership firm JDI. As the respondents were directors in JDPL and partners in JDI, the petitioner believed them and accepted the cheques. Subsequently when the respondents sold their firm, accused No. 1 to one mr. Harlalka, they also accepted their liability towards the petitioner firm in their individual undertakings given by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to Mr. Harlalka as admitted in exhibits P-15, p-16 and P-17 and this undertaking was also not disputed by the respondents during the cross-examination of the petitioner in his evidence. As the respondents knew that the petitioner mr. Damani is staying at Bangalore, and they are planning to leave their factory of JDI, they cleverly issued post-dated cheques knowing very well that they do not intend to make any payments. Thus when the petitioner wrote a letter to them dated October 7, 1995, reminding them about the past liabilities and for clearing the post-dated cheques issued by them, they with ulterior motive of not paying their dues wrote a letter dated October 14, 1995, making false and baseless allegations that the cheques were issued under stress and duress. This letter of the respondents shocked the petitioner and he has no alternative, but to take the help of law to counter their cheating intentions. Hence, the petitioner after depositing cheque and after getting the dishonoured cheque from his banker filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal procedure Code. On these and other averments made in the complaint, the petitioner presented the complaint before the CMM, Bangalore, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act.