T VIMALANANDHAN Vs. SUN YARN PROCESSORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, in S.T.C. No. 389 of 2012, dated 09.05.2013, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/ - as compensation. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2013 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, which was dismissed on 28.02.2014, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. As against the same, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

(2.) THE case of the respondent/complainant is that the complainant is a registered Partnership Firm. The complainant is represented through its Manager -cum - Power of Attorney Holder. The complainant is doing the job work of bleaching and dyeing of yarn on wages. The accused is one of the customer of the complainant. The accused had dealings with the complainant in sending yarn to get it bleached and dyed. The accused has agreed to settle the bill amount within seven days from the date of bill, failing which, the accused has agreed to pay the bill amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. As per the order placed by the accused, the complainant bleached and dyed the yarn supplied by the accused and returned the same to the accused with the bill for wages for the work done by the complainant. As per the account, a sum of Rs.6,63,368/ - is due and payable by the accused to the complainant, together will interest at the rate of 24% per annum. For the bill amount payable by the accused to the complainant, the petitioner/accused signed and tendered a cheque dated 23.10.2009. Since, the accused has not made arrangement to honour the cheque dated 23.10.2009, the accused struck out the date 23.10.2009 by putting his signature and asked the complainant to wait till the accused could make arrangement to honour the cheque. The complainant waited for two years and thereafter, the accused told the complainant to present the cheque in the first week of May, 2012, by filling up the date and accordingly, the complainant filled up the date as 04.05.2012 and presented the cheque for collection on 04.05.2012 and the cheque returned with an endorsement exceeds arrangement . The complainant issued a lawyer's notice on 10.05.2012 and the accused has received the lawyer's notice on 12.05.2011. Since, the accused neither sent a reply nor came forward to settle the amount, the complaint was given by the complainant. The complaint was taken on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode and it was assigned S.T.C.No.389 of 2012. The Trial Court has found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/ - as compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner/accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2013 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, which was dismissed on 28.02.2014, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case.

(3.) MR .J.Franklin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that originally the cheque dated 23.10.2009 was issued for a commercial transaction and even as admitted by the complainant, the date of the cheque was cancelled on the same day, but, thereafter, the complainant has filled up the date of the cheque as 04.05.2012 and has presented the same for collection and the same returned dishonoured, therefore, according to the petitioner/accused, when the original date of the cheque viz., 23.10.2009 has been cancelled by the petitioner/accused, who gave the cheque, the subsequent filling up of the cheque and presentation of the same and thereafter, filing a complaint for dishonour, will not give any legal right to the complainant. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has not authorised the complainant to fill up the date and present it on a later date, because, according to him, the date of cheque was cancelled by the party, who gave the cheque even in 2009 itself and therefore, the very transaction between them came to an end even in 2009 itself and when there is no other transaction between them thereafter, there is no liability on the part of the petitioner/accused to pay any amount to the complainant and in view of the same also, the cheque presented and dishonoured has no legal basis and therefore, both Courts below came to the wrong conclusion.