Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: MHMM180015612020 Received on : 18.01.2020
Registered on : 20.01.2020
Decided on : 31.08.2026.
Duration : Y. M. D.
06 - 07 - 13
PART 'A'
(Para 44(i) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS)
58th COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
(Presided over by:- B.S. Sankpal)
EXHIBIT No. 44
Case No.156/SS/2020
PROSECUTION/
COMPLAINANT
:- M/s Suraaj Linens Pvt Ltd
157, A to Z Industrial Estate, G.K.Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013
Through its Authorized representative
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Thakur, Mumbai.
REPRESENTED BY :- Learned Adv. N. J. Vaswani, K. N. Vaswani
and Vishal Zende
ACCUSED :- 1. Maestros Mediline Systems Ltd.
Plot no. El/63, TTC Ind. Area Electronic
Zone Mahape, Navi Mumbai – 400 701.
2. Mr. Krishnakumar Nandkumar Menon,
Dir.
3. Mrs. Chitralekha K. Menon
A-1101/1102, Apollo, Hiranandani Estate,
Ghodbunder Road, Patlipada, Thane West,
400 607.
-- 1 of 12 --
..2.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
REPRESENTED BY :- Learned Adv. Mr. Pankaj Shinde
PART 'B'
(Para 44(ii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
Date of Offence :- 22.12.2019
Date of filing Complaint :- 18.01.2020
Date of Registration of Complaint :- 20.01.2020
Date of Recording Plea :- 15.09.2023
Date of commencement of evidence :- 15.09.2023
Date on which case reserved for Judgment :- 28.08.2026
Date of the Judgment :- 31.08.2026
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any :- 31.08.2026
Accused Details
Rank of
accused
Name of the
accused
Date of
arrest
Date of
release on
bail
Offence
charged with
Whether
acquitted
or
convicted
Sentence
imposed
Period of
Detentio
n
Undergo
ne
during
trial for
purpose
of
Section
428,
Cr.P.C.
1. Maestros
Mediline
Systems Ltd.
---- 15.09.2023 Under
Section 138
r/w 141, 142
of the N.I.
Act, 1881
Convicted
To pay
compensation
of
Rs.7,75,000/-
-
2. Mr.
Krishnakum
ar
Nandkumar
Menon
---- 15.09.2023 Under
Section 138
r/w 141, 142
of the N.I.
Act, 1881
Convicted
Simple
imprisonment
for three (03)
months and to
pay
compensation
of
Rs.7,75,000/-
-
3. Mrs.
Chitralekha
K. Menon
---- 15.09.2023 Under
Section 138
r/w 141, 142
of the N.I.
Act, 1881
Convicted -
-- 2 of 12 --
..3.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
PART 'C'
(Para 44(iii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution/Complainant’s Witnesses:-
RANK
(CW)
EXHIBIT NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
Nil
B. Defence witnesses, if any :
RANK
(DW)
EXHIBIT NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
Nil
C. Court witnesses , if any :
RANK
(CW)
EXHIBIT NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
Nil
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution/Complainant:
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Exhibit-23 Board Resolution dated 11.11.2019
2. Exhibit-24 Original Bill of Exchange
3. Exhibit-25 Original Cheque
4. Exhibit-26 Memo of Complainant Bankers
5. Exhibit-27 Legal notice dated 30.11.2019
6. Exhibit-28,
Exh.29 &
Exh.30
Postal Receipts
7. Exhibit- 31,
Exh.32 &
Exh.33
Sealed Envelopes
-- 3 of 12 --
..4.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
8. Exh.34 &
Exh.35
Ledger Account Statement along with
65B certificate
9. Exhibit- 36 ROC
B. Defence :
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
1 Exhibit - --
C. Court Exhibits :
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Exhibit - --
D. Material Object:
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
Nil
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 31th Day of August 2026)
The accused are tried for the offence punishable under
section 138 read with section 141, 142 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (in short the 'N.I. Act').
The case of the complainant in nutshell is as follows:-
02. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Thakur is the authorized
representative of the complainant’s registered company. Accused
nos.2 and 3 are directors of M/s. Maestros Mediline Systems Ltd., i.e.
accused no.1. They are managing the business affairs of accused
no.1 and thus, responsible for affairs, conduct and management of
accused no.1.
-- 4 of 12 --
..5.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
03. It is the case of complainant that accused no.2 and 3
approached the complainant company in 2015 as they were in dire
financial crises. They asked the complainant company for cash
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for their business. Considering the request
of the accused the complainant company advanced sum of
Rs.4,80,000/- in presence of Sushma Jain, Accountant as well as the
present authorised officer of the complainant’s company. The
accused have executed Bill of Exchange for Rs.5,00,000/- dated
31.03.2015 and promised to issue a post dated cheques in its favour
in discharge of their liability in 2017 bearing no.851194 mentioning
the date 24/10/2019 for Rs.4,80,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank,
Mumbai Central Branch signed by accused no.2 in his favour.
04. The complainant further contended that he presented
the said cheque in its banker City Union Bank Ltd., Khar (W) Branch,
Mumbai for realization. But the said cheque is dishonoured on
account of the reasons ‘ Account closed” on 07.11.2019 with bank
return memo. Therefore, the complainant’s company gave statutory
notice on 30/11/2019 to the accused by RPAD. The accused refused
the said notice on 06/12/2019. The accused failed to pay the cheque
amount to the complainant company within statutory period. Hence,
this complaint.
05. My Ld. Predecessor has recorded the plea of accused at
Exh.18. The particulars of the offence were read over and explained
to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
06. Record indicates that, the accused have remained absent
on several occasions. Therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued
-- 5 of 12 --
..6.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
against them. However, the accused failed to appear. The accused
remained absent for a considerable longer period. Therefore, in view
of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Prakash
Chimanlal Sheth V/s. T. Ramalingam Nadar and Others 2022 SCC
OnLine Bom. 10161, the statement of accused under section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) was
dispensed with by my Ld. Predecessor on 03.12.2025.
07. Learned advocate representing the complainant has filed
written notes of arguments at Exh.43. Pondered over the written
notes of arguments. None present on behalf of the accused for final
arguments. Therefore, the matter was kept for judgment without
arguments on behalf of the accused.
08. Following points arise for my determination to which I
have recorded my findings with reasons thereto as follows:-
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1) Whether the complainant has complied with
the provisions of section 138 (a) and (b) and
section142 (1) (a) and (b) of the N.I. Act ?
Yes.
2) Whether the subject cheque was drawn by the
accused for the discharge of a legally
enforceable debt or other liability ? Yes.
3) Whether the complainant has established that
the accused dishonoured the subject cheque? Yes.
4) What Order ? Accused are
convicted.
-- 6 of 12 --
..7.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
REASONS
09. In order to prove averments made in the complaint,
complainant has examined himself as CW-01 at Exh.21 and relied
upon documentary evidence described in Part-C of this Judgment.
10. In the written notes of arguments Ld advocate
representing the complainant pointed out that the accused have
failed to reply to the statutory notice leads to the inference that there
was merit in the complainant’s version. He relied on the case of
Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan, 2010 (1) DCR 706 (S.C). In the said case,
the Hon’ble Apex Court quoted the observation made in case of
Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54. In
para 29 of the said Judgment Hon’ble Apex Court provides the three
ingredients of the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act these are -
i) that there is a legally enforceable debt;
ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for
discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability
which presupposes a legally enforceable debt; and
iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to
insufficiency of funds.
Keeping in mind these ingredients, I proceed to determine the points
noted above.
AS TO POINT NO.1:-
11. The subject cheque is dated 24.10.2019. The said cheque
was presented for encashment on 06.11.2019 and returned unpaid by
the drawee bank on 07.11.2019. Therefore, it is clear that, the
-- 7 of 12 --
..8.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
subject cheque was presented for encashment to the drawee Bank
within the validity period. Thus, the complainant has duly complied
with the provisions of section 138 (a) of the N. I. Act.
12. The complainant gave statutory notice (Exh. 27) dated
30.11.2019 to the accused persons. The notice Exh.27 coupled with
RPAD booking receipts at Exh.28 to Exh.30 go to show that, the
notices were dispatched by RPAD on 04.12.2019. As such, the
statutory notices were given within the prescribed period. The
complainant has filed sealed envelopes at Exh.31 to Exh.33. The
accused persons unclaimed the notices issued to them. It is significant
to note that, the accused have not come forward and disputed the
correctness of their address mentioned in the statutory notice Exh.27.
In short, the statutory notices were dispatched by RPAD on the
correct address of accused persons. Thus, evidence is very clear that
the notices are duly served upon the accused. As such, the
complainant has duly complied with the provisions of section 138 (b)
of the N. I. Act by giving notices to the accused in writing.
13. In the complaint, it is averred that, the accused
unclaimed the notices on 06/12/2019 and consequently returned to
the complainant. The said statement has been reiterated by the
authorized officer of the complainant’s company on oath in his
affidavit of examination-in-chief. The said statement has remained
unchallenged. Thus, the complaint filed is well within the prescribed
period of limitation. As such, the complainant has duly complied with
the mandatory provisions of sections 138 (a) and (b) of the N.I. Act.
Hence, point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative.
-- 8 of 12 --
..9.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
AS TO POINT NO.2:-
14. It is the case of complainant that, accused no.2 and 3
approached the complainant’s company in 2015 and requested for
Rs.5,00,000/- for their business since they were in dire need of
money. Considering the request of the accused, the complainant’s
company advanced sum of Rs.4,80,000/- in presence of Sushma Jain,
Accountant as well as the CW-1. The accused have also executed Bill
of Exchange for Rs.5,00,000/- on 31.03.2015 and promised to issue a
post dated cheques in favour of complainant’s company for
repayment. Accordingly, the subject cheque was issued by the
accused for repayment of money for discharge of their liability.
15. In his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, CW-1
reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The accused failed
to avail the opportunity of conducting cross-examination of the
complainant despite grant of sufficient time. As such, the oral
evidence of the complainant has remained uncontroverted. Same is
the position with the documentary evidence adduced by the
complainant. There is no rebuttal evidence against the statutory
presumptions under section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act which
have arose in favour of the complainant. Thus, the complainant has
sufficiently proved that, the subject cheque was drawn by the accused
persons in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. Hence, point
No. 2 is answered in the affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.3:-
16. Section 146 of the N.I. Act provides for a presumption to
the effect that, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon
the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, the
-- 9 of 12 --
..10.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
Court shall presume the fact of dishonour such cheque, unless and
until such fact is disproved.
17. In the present case, the complainant has produced
cheque return memo at Exh.26. The reason for dishonour is “Account
closed”. Thus, in view of section 146 of the N.I. Act, a presumption of
dishonour would arise in favour of the complainant. The accused
have not adduced rebuttal evidence to prove the contrary. In fact, the
accused have not put forth any defence whatsoever. Thus, it is duly
proved that, the accused have dishonoured the subject cheque.
Hence, point No. 3 is answered in the affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.4 :-
18. In view of the findings on points Nos. 1 to 3, the accused
are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w
141 of the N.I.Act. The accused and their Ld. Advocate are absent.
Record indicates that, the accused have remained absent on several
occasions. In this backdrop, there is no immediate prospect that, the
accused would remain present in near future. The accused have
already dragged the matter for a period of more than six years. It is
evident that, the accused have deliberately remained absent.
Therefore, they themselves have failed to avail the opportunity of
being heard on the point of sentence. The complainant is absent. The
Learned Advocate has prayed for maximum punishment.
19. The accused are found guilty for dishonour of cheque of
Rs.4,80,000/-. The said cheque was issued towards payment of
borrowed amount. The complainant had to suffer financial loss due
to the dishonour of the cheque. The accused have dragged the case
-- 10 of 12 --
..11.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
for a period of more than six years. Having regard to the totality of
the facts and circumstances of present case and in order to enhance
the credibility of acceptance of cheque, a substantive sentence of
imprisonment is required to be imposed upon the accused. The
complainant can also be compensated by awarding compensation
under section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. The principle of awarding
compensation to the complainant is to do reparation for the injury
sustained or likely to be sustained by reason of the offence. The
complainant would be entitled to the amount due upon the
instrument, together with the expenses incurred in presenting it. At
this juncture, useful reference can be made to a decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.Vijayan Vs. Baby and Anr.
MANU/SC/1245/2011, wherein it has been observed that,
“One other solution is a further amendment to the
provision of Chapter XVII so that in all cases where
there is a conviction, there should be a consequential
levy of fine of an amount sufficient to cover the cheque
amount and interest thereon at a fixed rate of 9% per
annum interest, followed by award of such sum as
compensation from the fine amount. This would lead to
uniformity in decisions, avoid multiplicity of
proceedings (one for enforcing civil liability and
another for enforcing criminal liability) and achieve the
object of Chapter XVII of the Act, which is to increase
the credibility of the instrument.”
20. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of R.Vijayan (Supra), the complainant is entitled to get
interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. on the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- from
the date of cheque till today. The said period is of 06 years 10
months. The total amount goes to Rs.7,75,200/- (Round off
-- 11 of 12 --
..12.. C.C.No.156/SS/2020(J).
Rs.7,75,000/-). With this, I proceed to pass the following Order.
ORDER
1. Accused No.1 Maestros Mediline Systems Ltd., accused
no.2 Mr. Krishnakumar Nandkumar Menon and accused
no.3 Mrs. Chitralekha K. Menon are convicted for the
offence punishable under section 138 r/w Section 141 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide section 255(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Accused No.2 Mr. Krishnakumar Nandkumar Menon and
accused no.3 Mrs. Chitralekha K. Menon are sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for three (03) months.
3. Accused shall pay compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) to the
complainant vide section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure within three (03) months from the date of this
judgment. In default of payment of said compensation
amount, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for
one (01) month.
4. Accused No.2 Mr. Krishnakumar Nandkumar Menon and
accused no.3 Mrs. Chitralekha K. Menon are to surrender
to their bail bonds.
5. The accused are absent. Issue arrest warrant against
accused No.2 and 3 vide section 418(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
6. Copy of this judgment be given to the accused free of
Costs.
(The Judgment is dictated and pronounced in open Court).
(B. S. Sankpal)
Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Date: 31.08.2026. 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
-- 12 of 12 --