SIDHU RICE AND GENERAL MILLS, QADIAN AND ANOTHER Vs. PUNJAB STATE CO-OP SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this order, I shall dispose of all the aforementioned petitions i.e. CRR Nos. 874 and 914 to 920 of 2006, as they involve adjudication of identical questions of fact and law between the same parties. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the petitions are that the Punjab State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Chandigarh (in short, 'MARKFED') through its Manager Shri Narinder Singh, filed eight complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'the Act') against M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills (in short, 'rice mill') and others, on the allegations that accused No. 1 is a partnership concern and accused Nos. 2 to 8 are its partners. Accused No. 1 is carrying on the business of shelling paddy. Accused Nos. 2 to 8 being partners of accused No. 1, entered into an agreement with the complainant dated 01.101994 for shelling of paddy IR.8 and accordingly, complainant supplied paddy for shelling from time to time to the accused. Rs.40,00,000/- was due towards accused payable to the complainant. The accused issued eight cheques bearing no. 0765355 dated 26.02.1996, 0765356 dated 06.03.1996, 0765357 dated 13.03.1996, 0765358 dated 20.03.1996, 0765359 dated 27.03.1996, 0765360 dated 03.04.1996, 0765361 dated 10.04.1996 and 0765362 dated 12.04.1996, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each in favour of the complainant, drawn on State Bank of India, Qadian, in discharge of their liability. The cheques on presentation got dishonoured and were returned to the complainant vide memo dated 12.07.1996 with the remarks 'payment stopped by the drawer'. The accused failed to make payment of the cheque amounts, despite receipt of notice dated 15.07.1996.

(2.) The dishonour of eight separate cheques resulted in filing of eight cases under Section 138 of the Act. After following the procedure of summons case and perusing the evidence consisting of statements of Hans Raj (PW1) and Narinder Singh (PW2) and statements of the accused in terms of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code'), the trial court held the partnership firm and one of its partners namely, Sukhmail Singh (responsible for conducting day-to-day affairs of the rice mill) guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act while the remaining accused were ordered to be acquitted.

(3.) The judgments of conviction were assailed in separate appeals filed by the partnership firm through Sukhmail Singh, which were eventually disposed of by the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide decision dated 19.04.2006, whereby the conviction and sentence of the appellants (petitioners herein) were affirmed by holding that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. However, a modification is made that all the sentences shall run concurrently.