QUETIC IMPEX Vs. M M T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the concurrent conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below. The respondent/complainant filed complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act thereinafter referred to as the Act) against the accused stating that the accused have post dated cheque for rupees twenty five lakhs on 20-5-1995 and that when the cheque was presented for payment through the bankers of the complainant on 18- 11-1995, it was returned on the ground of insufficient funds and that thereafter, the complainant issued notice to the accused on 1-12-1995 and that since the defendant did not comply with the above notice the complaint is filed.

(2.) The case was taken on file by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate Chennai. Before the trial Court, the complainant has examined one witness and marked Exs. P-I to P-8 On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence the trial Court convicted the accused 2 and 3 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rupees twenty five lakhs. The Court further directed that a sum of Rupees twenty five lakhs should be- paid to the complainant as compensation. The accused preferred an appeal against the said conviction and sentence in C.A Nos. 10 and 13 of 1997. The appellate Court dismissing the above appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on accused 1 and 2 it is seen that accused 1 and 2 preferred separate appeals- in C.A No. 10 of 1997 and third accused preferred appeal in C.A No. 13 of 1997. The appeal filed by third accused was allowed. The accused 1 and 2 preferred revision against the said conviction and sentence.

(3.) It is alleged in the grounds of revision that the trial Court ought to have acquitted the petitioners on the ground that the evidence of P.W. 1 was not corroborated by any other evidence and that the appellate Court ought to have held that non filing of authorisation letter at the time of filing the complaint was fatal and that the appellate Court ought to have seen that EX. P-10 was concocted for the purpose of the case and that Exs. P-3 and P-4 were not properly proved. In the additional grounds, the petitioners have stated that the trial Court is not empowered to impose fine of more than Rs. 5.000/- and that the trial Court imposed fine of Rupees twenty five lakhs which is beyond the powers of the lower Court and that there is no prayer in the plaint for any compensation from out of the fine amount and that the accused were not questioned after having been found guilty.