AHMAD TRADING COMPANY REP Vs. SHYAM TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.65 of 1992 by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in C.CNo.239 of 1991 by III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default to suffer one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (the Act).

(2.) Facts necessary for disposal of this revision briefly stated are these: The petitioner issued three cheques bearing No. 085482 dated 20-5-1991 for Rs. 27,000/-, 085481 dated 20-5-1991 for Rs. 50,000/- and 085495 dt. 24-6-1991 for Rs. 77,000/- towards consideration for goods supplied. The three cheques were presented in the bank on different dates and they were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner. There was correspondence i.e. notices and replies between the parties in this regard and ultimately, when the petitioner did not pay the amounts due under the dishonoured cheques, first respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. It was taken on file in C.C.No.239 of 1991. After appearance of the petitioner and when he was questioned under Section 251, Cr.P.C. on the basis of complaint, he admitted the facts and commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. He was also questioned under Section 142 besides Section 138 of the Act. In view of the voluntary and clear admission of the petitioner of the offence alleged, learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the aforesaid manner. The petitioner paid fine amount and preferred Crl.A.No. 65 of 1992 against his conviction and sentence. His contention in the appellate Court was that the complaint was time-barred and cannot be entertained under Section 142 of the Act. The appellate Court, after going through the record, found no merit in the contention and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The petitioner did not pay the amounts due to first respondent in spite of conviction and sentence. The first respondent took return of all the original documents on 4-3-1992 for the purpose of filing a suit for recovery of amounts due from the petitioner. It is clear from the submission of me learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit was filed against the petitioner the petitioner for recovery of amounts and it was decreed. The execution proceedings were also taken out against the petitioner consequent upon the decree obtained in the suit.