Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
Filed on : 27/12/2018
Registered on : 27/12/2018
Decided on : 19/05/2022
Duration : 03Y. 03M. 23D.
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
48TH COURT ANDHERI MUMBAI
(Presided over by K. G. Sawant)
Case No. 5180/SS/2018
CNR: MHMM190146752018
Exh. No. 47
Rudolph J. Alva, Senior Citizen,
Age : 75 years, Indian Habitant,
permanently Residing at: 2 Green
Beatrice Chawl, Jai Bhawanimata
Road, Amboli, Andheri (W),
Mumbai – 400 058. ...Complainant
Versus
Teddy William David.
Indian Habitant, Religion Christian
Permanently Residing, Swarup
Niketan, Flat No. 4, Bamanwada Road,
VileParle (E), Mumbai – 400099. ...Accused
Offence punishable U/s. 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act
Advocate Shri. Sanjay Gidh/Smt. Sonali Desai for the complainant
Advocate Shri. Mastan Shaikh for the accused
-- 1 of 19 --
2 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 19/05/2022)
Accused stands prosecuted for the offence punishable
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Hereinafter it is
referred as 'N.I.Act' in short.)
Case of the complainant in nutshell is as under :
2] It is the case of complainant that he is residing at Andheri along
with his family since last 62 years. Prior to 67 years of filing of this
case he came into contact of accused, through a common friend.
Complainant was a retired from private company and he was in search
of job to fulfill his daytoday needs, since he was not having any
children, who will take his care in old age. In the month of February
2016, accused represented complainant that he will give him job in
domestic airport as a Loader, provided that complainant gives Rs.
2,50,000/ to him as his commission. Believing on representation of
accused, he gave Rs. 2,30,000/ to the accused in installment in
between March 2016 to May 2016, against which receipts are issued by
the accused on his letterheads as a token of acknowledgement. Accused
did not provide any job to the complainant and therefore complainant
filed report with police station, Andheri against the accused on
14/05/2018 and sent copy of report to concern ACP, DCP and
Additional C.P. Thereafter, accused was called in police station by
police officer Irfan Shaikh, wherein accused gave undertaking to return
the amount of complainant. Accordingly, he issued two cheques
bearing no. 100053 and 100054 respectively dated 25/09/2018 and
30/10/2018 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/ and 1,40,000/ respectively.
-- 2 of 19 --
3 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
3] As per instruction of accused, complainant presented cheque
bearing no. 100053 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/ for clearance with
his banker namely Bassein Catholic Co. Op. Bank Ltd., however, it
returned unpaid on 19/02/2018 along with memo for reason “Funds
insufficient” in the account of drawer and “Payment stopped by
drawer”. Thereafter, complainant presented another cheque bearing
no. 100054 for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/ for clearance. However, same
also returned unpaid with reason “Insufficient funds” and “Payment
Stopped by drawer”. Thereafter, on request of accused he again
deposited said cheques for clearance in Model Cooperative Bank on
15/11/2018, however again these two cheques returned unpaid for
reason “Stop payment instruction given by the accused”.
4] Thereafter, complainant went to Andheri Police Station to file
complaint against the accused. In response to report of complainant,
accused was called by the police and they recorded his statement along
with other witnesses.
5] Thereafter, complainant issued demand notice to the accused
through his advocate within 30 days from the date of dishonor of
cheque i.e. on 23/11/2018, calling upon accused to pay the cheque
amount within 15 days from the date of service of notice on him.
Notice was served upon accused on 29/11/2018, by which he was
called to make immediate payment of Rs. 1,90,000/ for the
dishonoured of cheque. However, accused did not pay amount to the
complainant within a stipulated period. Therefore, complainant filed
this case on 27/12/2018 i.e. within 45 days from the date of service of
notice on the accused.
-- 3 of 19 --
4 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
6] The cognizance of offence u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
was taken and accused was summoned. Post issuance of process,
presence of accused was secured before the court and he was submitted
to bail. Substance of accusation was read over to accused, to which he
pleaded not guilty and opt for trial. Considering nature of offence, this
case is a tried as a summons trial case.
7] In order to prove guilt of accused, initially complainant filed his
own evidence affidavit but due to his illness and old age he was unable
to give answer of the questions put by Ld. Advocate for accused and
hence with permission of court, his wife filed her affidavit of evidence at
Exh. 39 as a power of attorney holder of complainant. She also
examined one Nelson D'souza as a P.W. 2 at Exh. 41. Besides oral
evidence, complainant has relied upon following documentary evidence
that includes:
Sr. No. Description of documents Exh. No.
1. Receipts as a acknowledgement of
loan issued by the accused
Exh. 23 to 28
2. Two original Cheques Exh. 29 to 30
3. 3 Cheque returned memos Exh. 31 to 33
4. Copy of complaint given to police
station, Andheri dated 14/05/2018
Exh. 34
5. Office copy of demand notice dated
23/11/2018
Exh. 35
6. Returned envelop along with postal
receipt dated 24/11/2018
Exh. 36
7. Notice from sealed envelope Exh. 35A
-- 4 of 19 --
5 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
8. Power of attorney executed in
favour of Shervin Alva.
Exh. 40
8] Complainant closed his evidence by filing pursis at Exh. 43. After
closer of complainant's evidence, statement of accused vide section 313
of Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Exh. 44, wherein accused has taken
defence of falsely implication. Accused neither examined himself nor
any witness in support of his defence which consist of total denial.
9] Heard Ld. Advocate for both parties at length. Perused written
notes of argument filed by complainant at Exh. 45 while accused has
filed his written notes of argument at Exh. 46. In view of accusation
and argument of both parties following points arise for my
determination and I have recorded my findings thereon as follows:
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Does complainant prove that disputed
cheques were issued by the accused, in
favour of complainant for discharging legal
enforceable liability?
…. In the
Affirmative
2. Does complainant prove that cheques were
returned unpaid for reason “Funds
Insufficient and Payment stopped by
drawer”?
…. In the
affirmative
3. Does complainant further prove that he had
issued statutory demand notice to the
accused within limitation demanding cheque
amount ?
….
In the
affirmative to
the extent of
cheque no.
100054 only
-- 5 of 19 --
6 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
4. Does complainant further prove that inspite
of service of notice accused has failed to pay
cheque amount to complainant within
statutory limit?
….
In the
affirmative to
the extent of
cheque no.
100054 only
5. Whether complaint is filed within period of
limitation? .. In the
affirmative.
6. What order ?
….
Accused is
convicted to
the extent of
cheque no.
100054 only.
REASONS
Admitted/undisputed fact
10] Before going further it is necessary to mention
admitted/undisputed facts of this case.
i) It is not disputed by the accused that disputed cheques
are drawn from his account maintained with
Bassein Catholic Co.Op. Bank Ltd. (Scheduled Bank)
AS TO POINT NO. 1
11] The accused is roped in the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the
N.I. Act. Upon perusal of relevant provision it is manifest that to
constitute offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act following ingredients
are to be fulfilled which are mandatory in nature.
 A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by
him in a bank for the payment of certain 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.
 That the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of
-- 6 of 19 --
7 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
Three months from the date, on which it is drawn or within period
of its validity, whichever is earlier.
 That the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the
amount of money standing to the credit of the account, is
insufficient to honour the cheque or that exceeds and amount
arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with
the bank.
 The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a
demand for the payment of said amount of money by giving a
notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of
the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding
dishonor of the cheque as unpaid.
 The drawer of the said cheque fails to make payment of said
amount of money to the payee or holder in due course of the
cheque within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice.
 The payee or holder in due course lodged written complaint in the
court within 30 days thereafter.
 The drawer of the said cheque failed to rebut the presumption u/s.
118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
12] Before going further, it is necessary to mention here that as per
Section 139 of N.I. Act, there is a presumption in favour of holder of
cheque. So also as per Section 118 of the Said Act, there is a
presumption that said cheque was issued for certain consideration. For
ready reference Section 118 and 139 of the said act are quoted below:
Sec. 118Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. Until the
contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
a) of consideration. that every negotiable instrument was
made or drawn for consideration, and that every such
instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred
-- 7 of 19 --
8 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
for consideration;
b) as to date. that every negotiable instrument bearing a date
was made or drawn on such date;
c) as to time of acceptance. that every accepted bill of
exchange was accepted within a responsible time after its date
and before its maturity;
d) as to time of transfer . that every transfer of a negotiable
instrument was made before its maturity;
e) as to order of indorsements. that the indorsements
appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the
order in which they appear thereon;
f) as to stamp. that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or
cheque was duly stamped;
g) that holder is a holder in due course. that the holder of a
negotiable instrument is a holder in due course:
Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its
lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by
means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the
maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or
for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the
holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.
Section 139. Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a
cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section
138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability.
-- 8 of 19 --
9 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
13] Being cumulative, it is only when all above mentioned
ingredients are satisfied then the person who had drawn the cheque can
be deemed to have been committed an offence u/s .138 of the Act. For
the purpose of section 138, debt or other liability means a legally
enforceable debt or other liability. To understand the spirt of provisions
contemplated vide section 138 to 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act,
Section 139 of the said act plays significant role. In view of express
provision of section 139 of N.I. Act, a presumption shall be drawn that
the holder of cheque, received the cheque, of the nature referred to in
Section 138 for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless
contrary is proved. Thus, it gives power to court to presume unless
contrary is proved that the holder of cheque received the cheque for
discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. The word
“shall presume” as per Section 4 of Indian Evidence Act means
whenever it is directed by this act, that the court shall presume a fact, it
shall regard such fact as a proved unless and until it is disproved. Thus,
the burden of proof as to cheque has not been issued as a legal debt or
liability is always on accused and it is for him to rebut said
presumption. A useful guidance on the said point can be taken from the
verdict delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goa Plast
Pvt. Ltd. V/s .Chico D'souza (2004 SCC (cri) 499) wherein the court
has considered the object behind section 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act
and held that the entire burden is on accused to show that cheque was
not issued for any debt or liability as mentioned in the complaint.
Hon'ble Court has further held that presumption u/s. 139 is a rebuttable
and it can be rebutted on the basis of evidence brought by the
complainant or by leading his own evidence. The standard of proof for
rebutting the presumption is preponderance of probabilities which is a
-- 9 of 19 --
10 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
standard applicable to the accused whenever accused is required to
prove a fact.
14] In order to discharge initial burden, complainant got examined
his power of attorney holder who is his wife namely Shervin Alva at
Exh. 39, wherein she has reiterated case from complaint. Her evidence
shows that complainant has executed power of attorney in her favour
and authorized her to depose in this matter. Her evidence further shows
that her husband was retired from private company and accused had
promised him to give a job at a Domestic Airport and against that an
amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ was to be paid as his commission. Her
evidence further shows that in between March 2016 to May 2016, her
husband gave Rs. 2,30,000/ to the accused in installment and for
partial repayment of said amount, disputed cheques for an amount of
Rs. 1,90,000/ was issued by the accused. She also stated that
complainant had been to police station against the accused wherein his
statement was recorded by the police. Her evidence also shows that at
that time one Mr. Nelson D'souza was also present and disputed
cheques were issued by accused in presence of said Nelson D'souza.
15] Complainant got examined Shri. Nelson D'souza (C.W. 2) at Exh.
41. His evidence also shows that he had been to Andheri Police Station
along with complainant. His evidence shows that accused had cheated
to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/ and after
intervention of police, accused had voluntarily issues two cheques in
favour of complainant in his presence.
16] Ld. Advocate for accused took crossexamination of these two
-- 10 of 19 --
11 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
witnesses at considerable length. In the evidence of Shervin (C.W. 1) it
has come on record that an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/ was given by her
husband to the accused in her presence. She has denied suggestion
given by Ld. Advocate for accused that, her husband was not fit to do
the work of loader. She also denied suggestion given on behalf of
accused that she has no any personal knowledge about this transaction.
She admitted that receipts are issued by the accused in favour of her
husband but not in her favour. She further admitted that filing of
report against the accused at Andheri Police Station and pursuant to
that accused was called by the police. She also admitted suggestion
given by Ld. Advocate for accused that, both the cheques were issued by
the accused at police station in favour of complainant. However, she
has denied issuance of blank signed cheque by the accused in favour of
complainant. She also denied that disputed cheques were obtained by
the police by threatening and beating to the accused. She also denied
that complainant is engaged in the business of illegal money lending.
17] So far as crossexamination of Mr. Nelson D'souza (C.W. 2) it
appears that he was not aware as to how much amount was lying in the
account of complainant. He was not aware about the transaction
between complainant and accused but he came into picture only at the
time of filing of complaint against the accused at police station Andheri.
His evidence further shows that, he was present in the police station
when accused was called by the police. He also denied that due to
pressure of police, disputed cheques were issued by the accused.
18] Thus, from the crossexamination of Shervin (C.W. 1) and Nelson
D'souza (C.W. 2), it appears that, accused has taken a defence that,
-- 11 of 19 --
12 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
there was no any transaction between him and complainant and
disputed cheques are obtained from him by the police by threatening
and beating to him. He has not stated anything about the receipts
issued on letterhead of accused at Exh. 23 to 28. Said receipts bears
signature of the accused as well as seal of his company. Though
accused was called in police station and disputed cheques were issued
by him in police station, there is nothing to show that these cheques
were issued by him under pressure of police. In fact, evidence on
record clearly shows that accused had issued receipts in favour of
complainant acknowledging acceptance of loan of Rs. 2,30,000/ from
the complainant. It is the argument of Ld. Advocate of accused that
complainant had no sufficient income source and therefore there was
no question of giving such huge amount by him to the accused.
Already accused had issued receipts admitting acceptance of loan from
the complainant. In such circumstances, capacity of complainant to pay
the amount is no issue. Besides that evidence of complainant shows
that he has no any issue and for his old age he wanted to do job to
maintain him and his wife. His evidence further shows that, he had
given amount to the accused which was received by him as a retirement
benefit from the private Ltd. Company. In such circumstances, financial
condition of complainant is no matter to disbelieve his case and
particularly when accused has issued receipts on his letterhead
acknowledging loan. Ld. Advocate for accused has further argued that
cheques were issued under pressure of police, however there is nothing
to show that disputed cheques were issued by the accused due to
pressure of police. On the contrary, record shows that he was liable to
pay amount to the complainant and therefore said argument of accused
is no acceptable. Evidence adduced by complainant is more than
-- 12 of 19 --
13 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
sufficient to raise presumption u/s. 139 of N.I. Act. It was for the
accused to rebut the said presumption by taking probable defence
supported by evidence. As discussed earlier defence taken by the
accused is not appears to be probable and enough to rebut the
presumption u/s. 139 of N.I. Act. Evidence of complainant's witness
shows that disputed cheque was issued by the accused in favour of
complainant for repayment of loan amount i.e. for discharging legal
enforceable liability. In result point no. 1 is answered in the
affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO. 2 TO 5
19] In order to prove that cheque was returned unpaid for reason
“Funds Insufficient and payment stopped by drawer”, complainant has
relied upon oral evidence of power of attorney holder of complainant in
addition to documentary evidence i.e. cheque return memos filed at
Exh. 31 to 33 issued by the concerned bank, which shows that cheques
were returned unpaid for reason “Funds Insufficient and payment
stopped by drawer” vide memo dated 30/10/2018 and 19/10/2018.
Said memo bears seal of the bank and signature of bank officer. As per
section 146 of N.I. Act, court shall in respect of every proceeding under
this chapter, on production of bank slip or memo having thereon official
mark denoting that cheque has been dishonored, presume the fact of
dishonor of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved.
20] In the case at hand cheque returned memo bear seal of the bank
and signature of bank officer. Accused did not bring any evidence to
rebut presumption u/s. 146 of N.I. Act, therefore, it becomes clear that
disputed cheques was dishonored for a reason “Funds Insufficient and
payment stopped by drawer”.
-- 13 of 19 --
14 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
21] In order to show that statutory demand notice was issued to
accused within statutory period, complainant has filed on record office
copy of notice at Exh. 35 and postal receipt and returned envelop along
with postal receipt on it at Exh. 36 which shows that demand notice
was sent on 24/11/2018. It appears that, notice was sent on correct
address of the accused. Said notice was returned back on 26/11/2018
with remark “Intimation posted”. Envelope bears stamp of the post and
it bears address of accused as a flat no. 4, 1st floor, Swaroop Niketan,
Bamanwada Road, VileParle (E), Mumbai 99. It is not the case of
accused that, this is not his correct address. Thus, notice was sent on
correct address of the accused but accused has not accepted this notice
and hence as per section 27 of General Clauses Act it is to be presumed
that notice is duly served upon accused. Admittedly, accused did not
pay cheque amount to the complainant within 15 days from the date of
service of notice or till today.
22] In this regard judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of C.C. Alavi Haji V/s. Palapetty Muhammed decided in
criminal appeal no. 767/2007 dated 18/05/2007 is relevant,
wherein in para No. 17 of the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as under :
“It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice
is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no
stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer
who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can,
withing 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of
the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment within 15
days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the
summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A
person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons
from the court along with the copy of the complaint under Section
138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper
-- 14 of 19 --
15 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory
presumption to the contrary under section 27 of the G.C. Act and
section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation
of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As
observed in Bhaskaran Case (Supra), if the giving of notice in the
context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of
notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid
receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from
legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act. ”
From the above observation it becomes clear that a person who does
not pay cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of summons from the
court, he cannot take defence that there was no proper service of
demand notice, when notice was sent by registered post on his correct
address. Admittedly in the case at hand accused has not offered or paid
cheque amount to complainant within 15 days from the date of service
of summons from the court on him. Therefore, this defence of non
service of summons is not available to him.
23] From the above discussion it becomes clear that notice was duly
served upon accused, however question arise whether notice was sent
within limitation. Complainant has produced on record cheque
returned memos at Exh. 31 in respect of cheque no. 100054 for an
amount of Rs. 140000/. Said memo is dated 30/10/2018.
Complainant has produced on record another two memos issued by
drawer bank as well as drawee bank in respect of cheque no. 100053
for an amount of Rs. 50000/. These memos are dated 17/10/2018 and
19/10/2018. So, if we presumed that complainant had received the
memo from his bank on 19/10/2018, then also notice sent on
24/11/2018 is not within limitation i.e. within 30 days from the date of
intimation given by the bank to the payee or holder in due course about
dishonored of cheque.
-- 15 of 19 --
16 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
24] From the perusal of above evidence, it becomes clear that
demand notice sent by the complainant as per Section 138 (b) of
N.I.Act, is not within limitation in respect of cheque bearing no. 100053
for an amount of Rs. 50000/. So far as another cheque bearing no.
100054 dated 30/10/2018 for an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ is
concerned, notice is well within limitation.
25] Ld. Advocate for complainant has argued that complainant had
presented the cheque for clearance once again on 15/11/2018 and
same were dishonored vide memo dated 16/11/2018. However, from
perusal of complaint, evidence affidavit and notice, it appears that
complainant has mentioned that he had presented these cheques for
clearance on 15/11/2019 but he did not mention date of its
dishonor/memo in the complaint, notice and affidavit. He has
produced on record the cheque returned memos having seal of the bank
at Exh. 31 to 33 dated 30/10/2018, 19/10/2018 and 17/10/2018,
which clearly shows that he has filed this complaint relying on memo
dated 30/10/2018 and 19/10/2018. Memo issued by the bank dated
16/11/2018 is not produced on record by the complainant along with
evidence affidavit. The said memo was neither tendered in evidence
nor complainant had argued relying on those memos. Therefore,
argument of complainant in relation to memo dated 16/11/2018
cannot be considered, since these memos are not proved and same are
not filed by the complainant along with his evidence or along with
evidence of power of attorney holder.
26] Considering all these things, it becomes clear that notice was sent
within limitation only in respect of cheque bearing no. 100054 for an
amount of Rs. 1,40,000/. Admittedly, accused did not pay cheque
-- 16 of 19 --
17 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
amount to the complainant within statutory period. In result point no.
2 is answered in the affirmative and point no. 3 to 4 are also answered
in the affirmative to the extent of cheque no. 100054 filed at Exh. 30.
AS TO POINT NO.6
27] Taking into consideration answer of points Nos. 1 to 5, it
becomes clear that the complainant has duly proved its claim with
cogent evidence against the accused to the extent of cheque no 100054
only. So far as cheque no. 100053 is concerned, demand notice was not
sent within limitation, so complaint filed in respect of said cheque is
also not within limitation. Therefore, accused is held guilty in respect
of issuance of cheque no. 100054 for an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ only.
28] As discussed above, the offence P/u/s. 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, is established against the accused. After considering
the conduct of the accused and nature of offence, I do not find any
special reasons or justifications to extend the benefit of probation to
him vide Section 3 to 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Therefore, the accused is called upon to state on the point of sentence.
(K. G. Sawant)
Date : 19/05/2022 Metropolitan Magistrate,
48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Hearing on the point of sentence:
29] I explained to accused that, he is held guilty for the offence
of the dishonor of cheque bearing no. 100054 for an amount of Rs.
1,40,000/ and that the N.I. Act has provided punishment to the offence
of imprisonment upto two years and fine upto twice of the cheque
-- 17 of 19 --
18 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
amount. Thereafter, I asked the accused to clarify his stand on the
nature and quantum of the sentence, if any.
30] Upon asking on the point of sentence, the accused submitted that,
minimum sentence may be imposed upon him. He stated that he is
ready to pay cheque amount in respect of one cheque i.e. an amount of
Rs. 1,40,000/ to the complainant in two installments within 2 months.
Ld. Adv. for accused has submitted that minimum sentence may be
imposed. On the other hand, Ld. Adv. For complainant has submitted
that, cheque was issued against the remuneration of labour charges and
therefore he prayed to impose fine amount to the extent of double of
the cheque amount and also prayed for imprisonment.
31] Heard both sides and gone through record. In this matter,
disputed cheque was issued in the year 2018. Almost 4 years have been
completed from issuance of cheque. In this court only 3 different cases
for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of N.I. Act against this accused filed
by 3 different complainants in respect of different transaction are
pending. In one of the matter yesterday only accused is convicted.
Having heard both parties, on the point of sentence, considering
purpose of legislature, behind this enactment, conduct of the accused, I
am of the view that granting the compensation along with sentence of
imprisonment will serve the ends of justice. In result I pass following
order:
ORDER
i. The accused Teddy William David is hereby convicted for the
offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881 vide section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
-- 18 of 19 --
19 C. C. No. 5180/SS/2018
ii. Accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for the period
of One year and he shall pay compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/ (Rs. Two
Lacs Thirty Thousand) to the complainant vide Section 357(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused shall pay above amount of
compensation within two months from today, in default of payment of
compensation, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for the period
of 15 days.
iii. The amount of compensation realized from the accused, shall be
paid to the complainant, subject to expiry of the appeal period or the
orders of Honourable Appellate Court (if any).
iv. Accused to surrender his bail bond.
v. No question of setoff under section 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, as the accused has not spent any period in the custody
during the trial.
vi. The copy of this Judgment be provided free of cost to the
accused, immediately after it is prepared, in view of section 363(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
vii. Dictated and pronounced in open court.
Mumbai (K. G. Sawant)
Dt. 19/05/2022 Metropolitan Magistrate
48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated On : 19/05/2022
Typed On : 19/05/2022
Signed On : 19/05/2022
-- 19 of 19 --