Tumula Harina Vs. M/S Uplands Finance and Chit Funds Priva - Court Judgment

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1173 of 2004 22-09-2014 Tumula Harinath ...Appellant M/s Uplands Finance and Chit Funds Private Limited rep. by its Managing Director and another .Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya Counsel for respondents/accused : None Counsel for respondent No.3/State : Public Prosecutor GIST : --- HEAD NOTE : --- ?. Cases referred:

1. (2006)3 SCC302. (2009) 2 SCC5133. AIR2010SC18984. AIR2008SC13255. AIR2001SC38976. AIR1999SC10087. IR2002SC1828. AIR2008SC28989. 1971 (1) An.W.R. 65 10. AIR2000 SC195311. 1997(2) ALD249(2) ALT Crl 626 12. AIR2000SC9213. (2014 (1) ALT Crl.145 THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1173 of 2004 JUDGMENT

: The appellant-complainant seeks to assail the order of acquittal dated 06.08.2003 passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in the private complaint case C.C.No.510 of 2001 filed by said complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity the Act).

2. The case of the complainant was that he joined as a member on 18.05.2000 in a new group No.UPGL-II of Rs.1,00,000/- payable in 40 monthly installments of Rs.2,500/- p.m. in A.1- entity under the name and style of M/s Uplands Finance and Chit Funds Private Limited and A.2 is the Managing Director of the A.1, and he was allotted ticket No.14, being paid all instalments, became successful bidder in the auction in the month of January, 2001 on forgo of Rs.29,000/-, the A.2 issued Ex.P.2 post-dated cheque bearing No.423943, dated 20.06.2001 for Rs.42,020/- on behalf of A.1, and when the complainant presented the cheque on 20.06.2001, the same was returned on 20.06.2001(Ex.P.3) dishonoured on the premise of insufficiency of funds in the account, on request of the accused, again presented on 09.07.2001 but the same was also returned on 10.07.2001(Ex.P.4) with the same reason. The Ex.P.5 legal notice dated 15.07.2001 issued by the complainant was received through (Ex.P.6) acknowledgment by the accused on 19.07.2001 but instead of payment of debt, issued Ex.P.7 reply notice on 07.07.2001. Hence, the complaint.

3. The accused appeared before the Court pursuant to the summons and after supply of case copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when questioned on substance of accusation under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, The Cr.P.C.) he pleaded not guilty.

4. On behalf of the complainant during the course of trial besides himself as PW1 cause examined PW2 B.Ravindranath and P.W.3 Chandra kiran Singh and got Exs.P.1 to P.7 marked.

5. After the evidence on the side of the complainant was completed, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material put to him. The accused got himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.X.1 and X.2.

6. Appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Court in acquitting both the accused held that A.2 being the Managing Director on behalf of A.1, entity, who signed as drawer the Ex.P.2 cheque, dated 20.06.2001 in favour of the complainant-payee for the debt(chit prize amount) and for the Ex.P.5 legal (statutory)notice dated 15.07.2001 issued to the A.1 entity acknowledged by Ex.P.6 and issued Ex.P.7 reply, dated 07.07.2001 (even admitting liability) saying prize amount due could have been paid, had the complainant produced sureties (in proof of legally enforceable debt covered by the cheque) dishooured second time presentation on 09.07.2001 vide Ex.A.4 for insufficiency of funds, however, held on point No.7 from paras 17-25 that the notice must have been issued to A.1 entity who is the drawer as per Section 138(b) besides on A.2 in the capacity of Managing Director of A.1 entity, instead to A.2 as Foreman of the chit of A.1 entity ad the Ex.A.6 acknowledgment contains signature of one PVCS Sarma without noting designation, thereby no proper notice even the same not raised by the accused as there is no sufficient averment in the complaint of A.2 who is responsible for day to day affairs of A.1 entity and the Ex.P.5 notice reached A.2.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant represents that when there is nothing to say the debt how not legally enforceable and once proved the debt and sending of notice to accused and reply given and not even the say in reply as A.2 is not Managing Director of A.1 nor Foreman of the chits run by the A.1 entity represented by A.2, said notice is suffice also to say knowledge of both accused for nothing to rebut by accused, that the trial Court failed to see that notice not separately given to A.1 and A.2 which is not material much less the accused admitted issuance of cheque and also reply notice shows that the accused were aware of the dishonour of cheque issued by them which is enough to make out offence under the N.I.Act that the Court below went wrong in dismissing the complaint with no basis and hence to allow the appeal by setting aside the acquittal and to convict.

8. The notice sent to the respondents/accused returned unserved as the accused entity is not existed so also of Managing Director to the address given in trial Court, thus treated the service is suffice and taken as heard to decide the matter on merits.

9. Now the points that arise for consideration are: (1). Whether there is a valid notice and accrual of cause of action to the complainant after statutory waiting to file case within time as per Section 138(b) and Section 142(b) of N.I.Act against the accused 1 and 2 who issued the cheque in favour of the complainant for discharge of legally enforceable debt for attracting the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, and if so, whether the trial Courts acquittal judgment is unsustainable?. (2). To what result?. 10-A. The Apex Court in NARAYAN MENON v. STATE OF KERALA held that once the complainant shown that the cheque was drawn by the accused on the account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount in favour of the complainant from out of that account for its discharge and the same when presented returned by the Bank unpaid for insufficiency of funds or exceeds arrangement, such person shall be deemed to have been committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. What Section 139 of the Act speaks of the presumption against the accused to rebut is the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 of the Act for discharge of debt. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. Accused need not enter into the witness box and examine other witnesses in support of his defence. Accused need not disprove the prosecution case in its entirety. Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the ".prudent man".. 10-B. The presumption that further applied among clauses (a) to (g) of Section 118 of N.I. Act also, like the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, as per Section 4 of the Evidence Act, is a rebuttable presumption for which the burden is on the accused, however, to rebut the presumption if a case is made out by accused either by pointing out from the case of the complainant including very documents and cross-examination or by examining any person and need not be always by coming to witness box vide decision in KUMAR EXPORTS PVT. LTD. V. SHARMA CARPETS . 10-C. Further, as per the expression of the Apex Court in RANGAPPA vs. MOHAN (3-Judges Bench) paras-9 to 15 referring to Goa Plasts case (supra), KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT v. DATTATRAYA G. HEGDE by distinguishing at para-14 saying the observation in KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT (supra) of the presumption mandated by Section 139 does not indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability is not correct, though in other respects correctness of the decision does not in any way cause doubted; by also referring to HITEN P. DALAL v. BRATINDRANATH BANERJEE holding at paras-22 and 23 therein of the obligation on the part of the Court to raise the presumption under 138, 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act, in every case where the factual basis for raising the presumption has been established since introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused, as a presumption of law distinguished from a presumption of fact as part of rules of evidence and no way in conflict with presumption of innocence and the proof by prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but for saying to rebut the accused can discharge the burden showing reasonable probability of non-existence of the presumption of fact and to that proposition, the earlier expression in BHARAT BARREL & DRUM MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. AMIN CHAND PYARELAL para-12 showing the burden on the accused is to bring on record by preponderance of probability either direct evidence or by referring to circumstances upon which he relies, rather than bare denial of the passing of the consideration; apparently that does not appear to be of any defence, to get the benefit in discharge of the onus against, also held referring the M.M.T.C. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. MEDCHL CHEMICALS & PHARMA (P) LTD that where the accused able to show justification of stop payment letter even from funds are there, but no existence of debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment to say no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act made out in discharge of the burden. It was concluded referring to the above, including of MALLAVARAPU KASIVISWESWARA RAO v. THADIKONDA RAMULU FIRM & ORS paras-14 and 15 that the initial presumption lays in favour of the complainant and Section 139 is an example of a reverse onus clause, which has been included in furtherance of the legitimate objection of improving the credibility of the negotiable instruments. While Section 138 specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. Bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions and the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clause and the accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof and in the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden to discharge by preponderance of probabilities by raising creation of doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability to fail the prosecution and for that the accused can rely on the material submitted by the complainant also in order to raise such a defence and he may not need to adduce any evidence of his own. 10-D. It was also observed in para-15 that the accused appear to be aware of the fact that the cheque was with the complainant, further-more the very fact that the accused has failed to reply to the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act leads to the inference that there was merit in the complainants version. It was also held by this court way back that having received and acknowledged the statutory legal notice after dishonour of cheque, non-giving of reply to said legal notice, improbablises the defence version, as any prudent person under the said circumstances should have, but for no defence to reply.

11. From above legal position, coming to decide on the facts from oral, circumstantial and documentary evidence, how far it is proved the case of the complainant and from drawing of presumptions and inferences if any, how far rebutted by accused concerned: There is no dispute on the factum of the complainant was subscriber of the chit run by the accused(A.1) entity under the name and style of M/s Uplands Finance and Chit Funds Private Limited and A.2 is the Managing Director of the A.1 and it is for the chit value of Rs.1,00,000/- in the chit group No.UPGL-II covered by the Ex.P.1 passbook(ticket) No.14 with signature of A.2 as Foreman therein also and the complainants subscription number is 702390 as detailed in Ex.P.1, the complainant became successful bidder in the auction in the month of January, 2001 for a loss of Rs.29,000/- that he was entitled Rs.71,000/- and Ex.P.2 post-dated (20.06.2001) cheque was therefrom issued for Rs.42,020/- in discharge of the said prize money pursuant to the liability of the chit fund company and its Foreman-the A.2 in favour of the complainant and the same when presented on the date 20.06.2001 (post-dated cheque) returned for insufficiency of funds as per Ex.P.3 cheque return memo and the complainant again represented the cheque and the same was also for self-same reason returned dishonoured on 10.07.2001 under Ex.P.4. It is pursuant to which the complainant has required by law to issue statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act. Section 138 reads as follows: Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account:- ".Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount, of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. b) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and c) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation:- For the purposes of this Section, debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

12. As per Section 142(B), complaint shall be made within one month of the date of which the cause of action arise under clause-C of the proviso to Section 138 supra. Ex.P.5 legal notice is issued on 15.07.2001 addressed to A.1 which represented by A.2. It clearly shows notice was issued to the drawer of the cheque that is A.1 entity represented by its Foremen-A.2 and no separate notice given to A.2. The notice complies with the statutory requirement of Section 138(b) and the Ex.P.6 is the acknowledgment bearing same address that of Ex.P.5 notice, that was received and signed by one V.C.S. Sarma with date 19.07.2001. It is pursuant to which Ex.P.7 reply notice was given to the complainants advocate by learned counsel for the accused. The reply notice in nutshell speaks that it is admitted the complainant as a chit member in their company for value of Rs.1,00,000/- payable in partly monthly instalments of Rs.2,500/- per month and participated and became a successful bidder on 28.01.2001, that the complainant not furnished sureties but for at a belated stage brought only some sureties for which the accused not satisfied and demanded two more sureties and when on the promise of complainant to bring the sureties later and provide loan to him and the same to be adjusted in the prize money unless sureties are brought, the accused arranged loan amount through the Ex.P.2 cheque for Rs.42,020/- and it is not thereby legally enforceable debt in connection with the amount. From this, it is important to note that the complainant became highest bidder of the chit and entitled to the amount and the cheque issued if at all not for the amount, if really the sureties as required not brought in the meantime after 28.01.2001, the accused could have demanded to produce sureties. The version of the accused that for want of sureties the amount could not be realised and however as an interim arrangement from request by the complainant as a loan, the cheque was issued by sanction of loan. Even that is taken, it is pursuant to the so called oral contract of a legally enforceable obligation of arrangement of loan agreed by the accused from request of the complainant sanctioned the loan and issued cheque. It is thereby within the meaning of debt or other liability and the same is legally enforceable debt for nothing to show based on public policy or unenforceable contract. Thus either from the complainants version or from the accused version even the cheque issued is for legally enforceable debt and the cheque presented was returned dishonoured and the statutory notice to the drawer of the cheque i.e. A.1 entity represented by its Foremen issued by the complainant and no payment made within the statutory time and from the cause of action accrued, the complaint was filed within one month as per Section 142 of the N.I.Act.

13. The trial Court failed to take notice of these facts from the said admitted reply contents. Once the entity-A.1 runs the chit represented by its Managing Director as Foreman-A.2 and the notice issued to the entity-A.1, even no separate notice given to A.2, in the absence of the Foreman of the chit and the Managing Director of the entity, coming to the witness box in saying he did not receive the notice and somebody received, there is nothing to dismiss the complaint much less even against the A.1 entity, leave about A.2, it is Managing director and Foreman of the chit being responsible for day to day affairs. As in the array of complaint, there is no name mentioned but for the Managing Director of the A.1 entity. It is the Managing Director or a person with such capacity being called in-charge of day to day affairs and the Ex.P.2 cheque as detailed supra when issued by the entity with stamp of the person signed as Managing director and Ex.P.1 subscription in the passbook with signature of the self-same person who issued Ex.P.2 cheque as Foreman i.e. Managing Director of the A.1 entity is equally responsible, as such notice of A.1 is sufficient as notice to A.2 and no separate notice is required as it is the reply given by the entity from the contents of said reply represented by the Managing director and Foreman otherwise a clarification could have been issued by the accused in the Ex.P.7 reply notice to the said array in Ex.P.5. Admittedly, even from the trial Courts judgment there is no defence taken in this regard by A.2 much less by A.1 on sufficiency of notice, that too, having received notice given reply by the person in charge of the entity, as it is Foreman and Managing director with knowledge suffice for accrual of cause of action not only for the entity but also against the Managing Director and the Foreman.

14. Now with reference to the above, coming to the cross-examination of P.w.1 by accusedD.W.1 it is stated that the A.2 is the Managing director of the company among its partners and it is a finance company and he made payments for every month of the chit instalments and obtained receipts discharged him and also passbook, that P.W.1 deposed that he does not know the person who signed the cheque on behalf of A.1 entity (Finance company). He denied the suggestion of there is no legally enforceable debt and accused did not issue the cheque. In fact, this suggestion runs contra to the reply notice Ex.P.7 contents detailed supra, thereby there is no worth cross-examination even disputing liability under the cheque issued by A.1 entity through its Foremen and Managing Director A.2. When the complainant presented the cheque in the State Bank of Hyderabad, and through the said bank, the cheque was sent for collection to the A.1-entity banker i.e. Andhra Bank, R.K.Mission branch, Beach Road, which was returned with no sufficient funds and thereby the cheque returned dishonoured twice as per Ex.P.3 and P.4 proved from the evidence of P.W.2-Deputy Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad and P.W.3 Branch Manager of Andhra Bank who deposed that in the Andhra Bank, R.K.Mission branch, there is account of the A.1 entity with name and style of M/s Uplands Finance and Chit Funds Private Limited bearing A/c. No.CD171and they issued the Ex.P.2 cheque to A.1 entity and when the same was received for clearance, for want of sufficiency of funds returned dishonoured and in the cross-examination, P.W.3 also deposed that the cheque was verified with the specimen signature for want of funds the same returned dishonoured that substantiates the complainants case of cheque issued was by the Managing Director-Foreman of the A.1 entity i.e. A.2, that is also tallied with the bank account of A.1 operating with the signature of A.2 in the Andhra Bank , R.K. Mission branch that what P.W.3 deposed. In fact, D.W.1 by name S.K.Malik Ahmed, came into witness box claiming as Ex-Managing Director of the finance company and deposed that the chit funds business was run from 1991 to 2002 and it is now in liquidation proceedings of High Court in C.P.No.38 of 2002 where provisional liquidator was appointed who is custodian of the business affairs. From the very say in the few lines of the chief examination of D.W.1, it proves he was Ex- Managing Director of A.1 entity and Foreman of the chit as he further says the complainant not produced sureties to realise the amount. He just say he did not issue Ex.P.2 cheque. In fact it runs contrary to the cross-examination of P.w.1 and Ex.P.7 reply contents as issued of cheque admitted there he did not chose to dispute his signature on Ex.P.1 as Foreman of the A.1 entity and on Ex.P.2 cheque as Managing Director or a Managing Partner, as the case may be, of A.1 entity. Once he did not choose to dispute his signature and the reply Ex.P.7 speaks it is he that issued to mean partner and Managing Director of the entity the cheque in favour of the complainant to enforce the person so as if he did not issue the cheque is untenable and from that stray sentence he cannot get over the liability. He did not even say the person who acknowledged is not on behalf of the entity and himself but any unknown person for any common as he did not even say the reply cause sent issued by him as Managing Partner or Managing Director of the entity of A.1. In the cross-examination surprisingly P.W.1 admitted that he used to supervise affairs of the A.1 entity and it continued under his guidance and it is he that cause replied of Ex.P.7 for Ex.P.5 notice. Admittedly he did not file any liquidation proceedings allegedly passed by the High Court in relation to the debt covered by the cheque given in proof of it if pending, though denied the suggestion of any liquidation proceedings pending and thereby the name of the complainant referred in any such proceedings or not, when even not submitted but for a false plea set up to get over reply about that had no way absolve their criminal liability vide decisions Pankaj Mehra Vs. State of Maharashtra and Sri Sreenivasa Trading Company Vs. State . It is also held that bar of civil suit under Section 22(1) of the SIC(SP) Act, 1995 that is admittedly a civil lis, that cannot be stretched to the criminal proceedings vide M/s BSI Limited Vs. G.H.Holdings . Thus, having issued the cheque for the chit amount money due and the same dishonoured, it clearly establishes the case against the accused persons 1 and 2 therefrom and it is with reference to the facts and the legal position (surpa) is very clear.

15. Having regard to the above from the facts and law, the A.2 having issued cheque for legally enforceable debt on behalf of the A.1 entity being its Foreman for the chit amount due towards amount payable by the accused to the complainant that was when presented, returned dishonoured and issued notice failed to pay but for giving fake reply even therein while admitting though any some other different manner as if the legally enforceable debt for which the cheque was issued since dishonoured without payment from the cause of action accrued the A.1 entity and the A.2 as Foreman and Managing Director of it, admittedly managing affairs and guiding as the in-charge of the entity in day to day transactions, issued the cheque for the legally enforceable debt for the inability to rebut the presumption, that too, having admitted the defence against the accused persons is made out and trial Court went wrong in acquitting and as such the trial Court judgment is liable to be set aside and the A.1 and A.2 are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Point No.2:

16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below is hereby set aside and the respondents-A.1 and A.2 are found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and is convicted accordingly.

17. For hearing of the accused on the quantum of sentence posted to 01.09.2014. _____________________________ Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO Date:

26. 08.2014 Vvr 22.09.2014 :

18. Respondent/accused absent. The trial Courts acquittal judgment is set aside finding the accused guilty allowing the appeal. As the cheque amount is for Rs.42,020/-, dated 20.06.2001. It was held by the apex Court in SOMNATH SARKA VS. UTPAL BASU MALLICK that the Act not contemplated grant of compensation but envisages imposition of fine not exceeding twice the amount of dishonoured cheque and out of said fine amount, the complainant be compensated under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and that unlike for other forms of crime, the punishment here (insofar as the complainant is concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainants interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery. As against the accused who is willing to undergo a jail term, there is little available as remedy for the holder of the cheque. Having regard to the above and from the submission by the appellant/complainant of the endeavour is to recover the amount of compensation from out of fine or otherwise, rather than sentencing the accused to jail, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment till rising of the day and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/- and out of which the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the cheque amount and the accused is hereby directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- towards fine to the State in the Registry of this Court. If the fine not paid by the accused today, the Registry is hereby directed to communicate this order to the Magistrate concerned to cause recover the fine amount and to implement the sentence under Section 431 read with Section 421 of Cr.P.C. by issuing warrant levying the fine with default sentence of three months Simple Imprisonment as per Sections 65 to 68 read with 53(6) I.P.C. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. _____________________________ Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO Date:

22. 09.2014.