Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: K. Natarajan, J. upheld the decision of the lower courts against the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 

The facts of the case were that the accused availed the credit facility from the complainant board by executing the documents like Hundi Agreement etc. according to which the accused was required to pay the bill amount along with the agreed rate of interest within 90 days. The cheque was thus issued for the payment which was dishonoured for the reason that payment was stopped by the drawer. When no response was given to the legal notice, the complainant lodged the complaint before the Magistrate in which the accused was held guilty and convicted and sentenced to pay fine. 

The appeal was thus preferred before the Fast Track Court (Session) XI, Bengaluru which was dismissed. Thus the revision petition against the same was filed in the aforementioned case.

The learned counsel, G.B Nandish for the petitioner contended that trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the aspects about admission by the complainant witnesses. 

The learned counsel, Abdul Reyaz Khan for the respondent contended that the amount received from the accused were all adjusted in the books and the amount was due for the accused as he has issued the cheque along with the letters. The documents were appreciated by the trial court and held guilty. He, thus, prayed for dismissing the revision petition.  

High Court on noting the submission of the party held that this court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record when there is concurrent finding of the courts below, unless there is any illegality or error committed by both the courts below which calls for interference by the court. Thus Revision petition was dismissed and accused was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881.[A.K. Aijaz Ahmed v. Naijaz Ahmed Shariff, Criminal Revision Petition No. 1386 of 2010, decided on 10-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of lower court’s order whereby a prima facie case under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out against petitioner.

In the present case, respondent 2 had on petitioner’s persuasion, he invested in a company named Panjon Finance and an agreement was executed between the parties where it was stipulated that shares would mature after four years when repayment would be made to the respondent by the company. It is alleged that upon expiry of the term, despite several reminders and request to pay back the amount as per terms of the agreement, the same was not done leading to filing of a complaint under IPC. 

Learned counsels for the petitioner Mr Ajay Kumar Thakur, Mr Nilesh Kumar, Mr Pravin Kumar and Mr Udbhav submitted that the petitioner was merely an employee of the company and since he had only signed as a witness on the agreement, he could not be made criminally liable for non-performance of terms of the agreement. The dispute was purely a money dispute which could be resolved through civil law.

The Court opined that petitioner, in the capacity of the company’s local manager company, persuaded the respondent for investment.  Respondent 2 had relied on him and his trust was belied by the petitioner. As such, a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. Relying on the dictum in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 it was held that there was no infirmity in lower court’s order and the petition was dismissed.[Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Bihar,2018 SCC OnLine Pat 2218, decided on 13-12-2018]