SASEENDRAN NAIR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question: Whether the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would involve moral turpitude.

(2.) To discuss the above question we may narrate a few material facts clipping out unnecessary details. Appellant is a discharged employee of the State Bank of Travancore, who before his discharge, was working as Record Keeper in one of its branches. He issued a cheque to one person which on presentation was bounced back," and he did not pay the cheque amount even after the receipt of a notice. So a complaint was filed by the payee for the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). The prosecution ended in conviction of the appellant and in appeal, the sentence imposed was modified and he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the complainant in the case and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo imprisonment for three months. As he did not pay the fine and compensation he was sent to jail and he suffered imprisonment for the entire period.

(3.) Appellant was discharged from service thereafter holding that his act in issuing a cheque without sufficient funds is an offence involving moral turpitude warranting termination of his services in terms of S.10(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act. As against the said discharge order appellant has filed the original petition, but it was dismissed by the learned single Judge and hence this writ appeal.