GEORGE JOSEPH Vs. HMT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners and respondent No. 2/accused, were charged for an offence punishable under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short), on a complaint filed by the respondent No. 1, in C.C.No. 20138/1997, by the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. After trial, learned Magistrate, by a Judgment dated 17.06.2003, convicted the petitioners and respondent No. 2, for the offence punishable under S.138 of the Act and sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs. 70,00,000/- and, in default, accused Nos.2 and 3/petitioners herein, were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Out of the recovered fine amount, Rs. 69,75,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant/respondent No. 1 herein, as compensation. Accused Nos.2 and 3 filed Crl.A.No. 381/2003, in the City Civil & Sessions Court, Bangalore City. The appeal was assigned to the Fast Track Court -II, Bangalore City. Learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, by a Judgment dated 13.10.2006, allowed the appeal in part. The conviction of the accused was confirmed. However, the fine amount was reduced to Rs. 65,50,000/-. The fine amount, if not paid, accused Nos.1 and 2 were directed to undergo S.I. for 6 months. If, fine amount of Rs. 65,50,000/- is recovered, the same was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant.

(2.) Sri S.G. Bhagavan, learned advocate, firstly, contended that the Appellate Court has conducted itself injudiciously, since, it has not even gone into the aspects of the matter argued before it, particularly, with regard to, (i) the maintainability of the complaint; (ii) authority to institute the complaint and (iii) Ex. P. 22 - Account Extract, being in loose sheets. He submitted that, not even a reference has been made to the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, copies of which were furnished and reliance was placed during the course of arguments. He further submitted that the appeal has been 'disposed off', without 'deciding it' in the manner known to law, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Secondly, the Judgment of the Appellate Court is vitiated, since, on 04.08.2006, arguments of the appellants were heard and the absence of the learned advocate for the 1st respondent was noted and the appeal was posted to 18.08.2006, for pronouncement of Judgment. The Judgment being not ready, the appeal was adjourned to 31.08.2006. An application, copy of which was not served on the advocate for the appellants, having been filed in the appeal by the 1st respondent on 28.08.2006 i e., seeking preponement of the case, the appeal has been preponed without notice to the appellant and posted to 31.08.2006 and the matter having been adjourned thereafter on few occasions, by wrongly showing the advocate for the appellants as having been heard, the impugned Judgment, which is perverse and illegal, has been passed. Thirdly, without considering the matter in accordance with law and without assigning reasons, the finding of guilt erroneously recorded was upheld and modified sentence imposed, which are against the law, the facts & probabilities of the case.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri T. Suryanarayana learned advocate, appearing for the 1st respondent, supported the impugned Judgments and contended that the Appellate Court has applied its mind in regard to the record of the case, before confirming the conviction.