Bombay High Court
M/S. Amin Warehousing Pvt Ltd vs All Freight International Pvt Ltd ... on 10 December, 2015
Bench: A.M. Thipsay
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.351 OF 2013
M/s.AMIN WAREHOUSING )
Through its Proprietor )
SMT. KHATUNBIBI J. MOHD. YUSUF PATEL )
(Since deceased, Through her Legal Heirs) )
1. Mahamad Shafi Mahamad Yusuf Patel )
2. Mahamad Aub Mahamad Yusuf Patel )
3. Abdul Majid Mahamad Yusuf Patel )
4. Mahamad Amin Mahamad Yusuf Patel)
5. Abdil Wahab Mahamad Yusuf Patel )
6. Abdul Rashid Mahamad Yusuf Patel )
7. Mahamd Riaz Mahamad Yusuf Patel )
8. Smt.Khanam Shoukat Patel )
9. Smt.Shamina Ayub Namer )
10. Smt.Khadija Amin Patel )...APPELLANTS
V/s.
1. Al FREIGHT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.)
1 (a) Mr.Lordis D'Costa Fernandes
1 (b) Smt.Althiya Lordis Fernandes
2. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENTS
Shri Prashant M. Patil i/b. Shri Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate for the
Appellants.
Shri Sandeep Velkar i/b. Shri Raju Gupta, Advocate for
Respondent No.1, 1(a) and 1(b).
Shri Deepak Thakre, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J
RESERVED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2015
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th DECEMBER, 2015
avk 1/29
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2015 23:57:00 :::
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
JUDGMENT :
1 Poor drafting of the complaint and the affidavit of
evidence, the ambiguities and vagueness therein, has created
problems for the complainant, in what was, otherwise, a simple
complaint case in respect of an offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The appellant, a proprietary concern, had filed a
complaint through the Constituted Attorney (C.A.) of the
proprietor, against a private company - the Respondent No.1
herein, and its two directors - the Respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(b)
herein, alleging commission of an offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' or 'the said Act') The complaint related to
dishonour of eight cheques, but the Magistrate, after observing
that so far as three cheques were concerned, the notice of demand
under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, was not
issued within the statutory period, limited the prosecution of the
accused persons only with respect to the remaining five cheques.
avk 2/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
3 After holding a trial, the Magistrate passed an order of
acquittal of the accused persons. Being aggrieved thereby, the
appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal.
4 I have heard Shri Prashant Patil, learned counsel for
the appellants. I have heard Shri Sandeep Velkar, the learned
counsel for respondent no.1, 1(a) & 1(b). I have heard Shri
Deepak Thakre, the learned APP for the State. I have carefully
gone through the complaint, the entire evidence - oral and
documentary - adduced during the trial, and the impugned
judgment.
5 The learned Magistrate, while acquitting the accused
persons, inter alia observed that the complaint was not
maintainable, as the offence had been committed by a company,
and that, the company was not arraigned as an accused.
6 The Magistrate also made certain other observations
on the merits of the matter, in coming to the conclusion that the
avk 3/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
accused persons deserved to be acquitted. However, before going
into those aspects, it would be necessary to see whether the
company had, infact, been made an accused or not.
7 The title of the complaint filed by the appellants
(hereinafter referred to as the complainant) is as under :
vy QszV baVjuW'kuy izk-fy-] rQsZ Mk;jsDVj
1- Jh-ykWfMZl fMdksLVk QukZafMl] o; & lKku]
2- Jherh- vYFkh;k ykWfMZl QukZafMl] o; & lKku]
vkWfQl iRrk & [email protected]] panzeq[k bLVsV]
vxjoky VªsM lsaVj] IykWV ua-62] lsDVj dza-11]
lh-ch-Mh-csykiwj] uoh eqacbZ.
Translated in English, it would read thus :
On behalf of Alfred Pvt. Ltd., Director
1. Shri Lordis D'Costa Fernandes,
2. Smt. Althiya Lordis Fernandes,
Office Address - 85/86, Chandramukh Estate
Agarwal Trade Centre, Plot No.62,
Sector No.11, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
8 A reading of the complaint shows that sometimes a
plural expression 'rs' (they) has been used while referring to the
avk 4/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
accused, and sometimes a singular expression has been used
(vkjksihus).
9 Paragraph 12 of the complaint reads as under :
;k fQ;kZnhps Eg.k.ks vls dh] vkjksih gh ,d izk;OgsV fyehVsM
daiuh vlwu] vkjksih dzekad 1 o 2 gs lnj daiuhps lapkyd
vlwu] lnj daiuhpk nSuafnu dkjHkkj pkyfor vkgs- rlsp] lnj
daiuhps orhus HkkM;kps Fkfdr jDdesiksVh vkjksihus psDl vnk
dsY;keqGs R;kal lnj fQ;kZnhe/;s vkjksihi.kkr lkehy dsys vkgs-
rlsp] lnjgw psde/khy jDde gh] ^^fyxyh brQksjfl,vy MsCV**
vlY;kus vkjksihus lnj jDde fQ;kZnhl ns.ks dk;|kus ca/kudkjd
vkgs-(Emphasis supplied)
Translated in English, it would read thus :
"The complainant states that the accused is a
private limited company, and the accused nos.1 and
2 are the directors of the said company, and are
looking after the day to day business of the said
company. Moreover, the accused having issued the
cheques towards the arrears of rent on behalf of
the company, they have been included in the
complaint as accused. Moreover, the amount of
the cheque being legally enforceable debt, it is
avk 5/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
legally binding upon the accused to pay the said
amount to the complainant."
(Emphasis supplied)
10 In the affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the
complainant, it is mentioned as follows :
vkjksih gh ,d izk;OgsV fyehVsM daiuh vlwu] vkjksih dzekad
1 o 2 gs lnj daiuhps lapkyd vlwu] lnj daiuhpk nSuafnu
dkjHkkj pkyfor vkgs- rlsp] lnj daiuhps orhus Fkdhr
yk;lUl Qhps jDdesiksVh vkjksihus /kukns'k vnk dsY;keqGs o
lnj /kukns'kkoj R;kaP;k lg;k vlY;keqGs] R;kauk lnj
dsle/;s vkjksihi.kkr lkehy dsys vkgs- rlsp] lnj
/kukns'kke/khy jDde gh] ^^legally enforceable debt**
vlY;kus vkjksihus lnj jDde eyk ns.ks dk;|kus ca/kudkjd
vkgs-
Translated in English, it would read thus :
"The accused is a private limited company and
the accused nos.1 and 2 are the directors of the
said company, and are looking after the day to
day business of the company. Moreover, the
accused having issued the cheques towards the
avk 6/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
arrears of license fees and the cheques having
been signed by them, they have also been
included in the complaint as accused. Moreover,
the amount in the cheque being legally
enforceable debt, it is legally binding upon the
accused to pay the said amount to me.
11 It is not possible to accept that the complaint has not
been made against the company - Al Freight International Private
Limited, who had drawn the cheques in question. It is clear that
the complainant has categorically stated that the accused was a
private limited company, and that, the accused nos.1 and 2 were
being prosecuted as the directors thereof, and on the assertion
that they had been looking after the day to day business of the
said company. It has also been asserted in the complaint that the
cheques had been signed by the said directors i.e. the accused
nos.1 and 2.
12 The whole confusion that arose in the mind of the
Magistrate is because of the fact that in the cause title of the
complaint, though the company Al Freight International Pvt. Ltd.
avk 7/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
has been mentioned as an accused, the same has not been
described by giving a serial number. The usual practice while
drafting pleadings and complaints is to give serial numbers to a
particular category of the parties to the suit or prosecution. Thus,
if there would be three plaintiffs, they would be described by
giving serial numbers as 1, 2 and 3 to them. If there would be
three defendants, they would also be similarly described as
defendant no.1, 2 and 3. If there would be more accused, a
separate serial number would be given to each of them. In the
instant case, serial numbers have been given only to the directors.
Serial no.1 finds a place on the left side of the name of accused
Lordis Fernandes and serial no.2 finds a place on the left side of
the name of accused Smt.Althiya Fernandes. Since only serial
numbers 1 and 2 are mentioned, the Magistrate appears to have
thought that there were only two accused in the case, i.e. those
against whose names, serial numbers had been mentioned. It is
true that the complainant ought to have given a serial number to
the private limited company also, but just by reason of the number
having not been given, it cannot be said that the complaint had
avk 8/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
not been filed against the company, or that, the company was not
being prosecuted at all. The Magistrate should have looked at the
complaint and on a bare reading of the complaint, and more
particularly, paragraph 12 thereof (reproduced above) it should
have been obvious to him that the company was said to be the
main accused as per the complaint. It also should have been
obvious to him that, the accused nos.1 and 2 were alleged to be
liable for the offence in question, on the basis that they were the
directors of the said company, and that, they were running the day
to day business / affairs of the said company. Thus, the finding that
' the company was not being prosecuted, and that, therefore, the
directors thereof could not be prosecuted ' , as recorded by the
Magistrate, is not correct. This was a case where the company was
being prosecuted. It had been specifically mentioned to be the
accused in the complaint, though no serial number had been
mentioned against the name of the company while putting it in
the caption "accused." The doubt in that regard, if any, further
stands removed if the notice of demand given under Clause (b) of
proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Exhibit
avk 9/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
53) is studied. This notice is addressed to the company Al Freight
International Pvt. Ltd. The addressee is described as follows :
"To,
Al Freight International Pvt. Ltd.,
Through Its Directors.
1) Mr.Lourdes D'Costa Fernandes
2) Mrs. Althiya Lourdes Fernandes
Office at 85/86, Chandramukh Estate,
Agarwal Trade Center, Plot No.62,
Sector 11, CBD, Belapur,
Navi Mumbai."
This notice was replied by a letter dated 29 th March 2008 by the
company Al Freight International Pvt. Ltd. The reply is on the
letter head of the said company and purports to have been signed
by its Managing Director (Exhibit 57) "for" the company. This,
and the expression "we" used in the reply, leaves no manner of
doubt that not only the notice of demand was in fact, issued to the
company, but was also treated and understood as such, and
replied to by the company itself.
13 There can be no doubt that the company was said to
be an accused, that the complaint stated so, and that, the
company was being prosecuted. Inspite of there being direct
avk 10/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
assertions in the complaint to that effect, the learned Magistrate
wrongly held that the company had not been made an accused,
and that, therefore, its directors simplicitor could not be
prosecuted for the offence allegedly committed by the company.
The Magistrate appears to have been misled only by the fact that
no serial number was mentioned against the name of the
company, while putting it in the caption "accused."
14 It is, thus, clear that the finding recorded by the
Magistrate that the complaint was not maintainable by reason of
the company not having been made an accused, is incorrect, and
needs to be interfered with.
15 The other reason leading to the acquittal as given by
the Magistrate, and as is found in the impugned judgment, is that,
'the complainant had failed to prove that the cheques in question
had been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, or
other liability'. This finding of the Magistrate also does not appear
to be correct and needs to be interfered with.
avk 11/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
16 The case of the complainant is that the complainant
owns a certain property i.e. non-agricultural land bearing Gat
No.55 at Mouje Khairne, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. That, the
accused persons are doing the business of maintaining a
warehouse, and that, at the material time, the said business was
being carried out in the name of Al Freight International Pvt. Ltd.
That the accused required big places for storing the goods in
connection with their business. That, in February 2004, the
accused approached the complainant and requested for a certain
land admeasuring about 12 acres, from out of the aforesaid land,
to be given to them on leave and license basis. That, accordingly,
as per the oral agreement between the parties, the complainant
gave the land on leave and license basis to the accused by handing
over its possession in the first week of March 2004. That,
thereafter, the accused had been paying the rent/license fee/
compensation (hereinafter referred to as "compensation") in
respect of the occupation of the said place regularly, but since July
2007 the accused stopped paying the compensation. That, as per
the oral agreement, for a period from 2007 to 2008, the monthly
avk 12/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
compensation in respect of the said land was fixed as Rs.3 Lac.
That, after the accused stopped paying the compensation in July
2007, the complainant repeatedly approached the accused and
demanded the arrears of compensation. Ultimately, in February
2008, eight cheques towards the arrears of rent were given by the
accused in favour of the complainant. The details of the cheques -
eight in number - are given in paragraph 5 of the complaint. The
three cheques which were dated 7th February 2008, were
dishonoured on 8th February 2008, and the intimation with respect
to the dishonour was received by the complainant on 11 th
February 2008. The remaining five cheques were dishonoured on
11th February 2008, and intimation in that regard, was received by
the complainant on 14th February 2008.
17 It may be recalled that the notice of demand with
respect to the three cheques dated 7 th February 2008 was held to
have been given not within the statutory period, and the learned
Magistrate confined the prosecution of the accused persons only
with respect to the remaining five cheques.
avk 13/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
18 Thus, the cheques had been issued, as per the complaint,
towards the arrears of the compensation payable by the accused for
using the land belonging to the complainant. In his evidence, the
complainant gave evidence consistently with the averments in the
complaint.
In the cross-examination, it was suggested to the
complainant's witness that the accused had never taken any place
on rent (or license), and that the accused were not liable to pay
any amount to the complainant, which suggestion was denied by
the complaint's witness.
20 Apart from its Constituted Attorney, the complainant
examined two more witnesses in support of its case. The second
witness Aira Bhaskar Rao is an employee of the Syndicate bank
who had produced the papers relating to the cheques issued by
the accused Al Freight International Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the
complainant Amin Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. His evidence, among
avk 14/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
other things, shows that during the period from 2006 to 2008, Al
Freight International Pvt. Ltd. had issued a number of cheques in
favour of Amin Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. and the said cheques were
honoured. This evidence has not been challenged. The
suggestions given to this witness in the cross-examination are that
the statement produced by him, is not in accordance with Banker's
Book Evidence Act, that the statement does not mention about the
cheques which are the subject matter of the case, etc. The
examination does not touch the aspect of a number of cheques
having been issued by the accused - Al Freight International
Pvt.Ltd - in favour of the complainant - Amin Warehousing
Pvt.Ltd - during the period from 2006 to 2008 and of the cheques
having been honoured.
21 The third witness examined by the complainant is
Arun Shankar Kulkarni - retired public servant - who had been
working as the Licensing Authority and Assistant Commissioner,
Food and Drugs Administration. His evidence shows that the
accused nos.1 and 2 had, on behalf of Al Freight International Pvt.
avk 15/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
Ltd., applied for a license to store and sell vegetables and bakery
products. This witness had visited the place i.e. the place at
Khairne village and had noticed that a warehouse had been built
on the land and vegetables and bakery products were being stored
at the said warehouse. The suggestions, that he had not inspected
the premises, and that, the accused persons had not at all applied
for the license, as put to him in the cross-examination, were
denied by him.
22 The Magistrate disbelieved that the complainant had
given land to the accused on leave and licence basis, and that the
accused had been using the same for the purpose of their business.
He discarded the evidence of the third witness A.S. Kulkarni on
grounds which are not at all reasonable. The Magistrate noted
that Kulkarni had stated about his visit to the place, and had also
produced in evidence, a copy of the original licence (Exhibit 79)
which had been issued under his signature in favour of the
accused, but strangely, observed that 'Kulkarni had not produced
any document to show that the accused had applied for
avk 16/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
permission', or had produced 'No Objection' certificate of the land
owner or Gram Panchayat. The Magistrate ignored the statement
made by Kulkarni in his evidence that those documents had been
destroyed by his office. The Magistrate, in his anxiety to discard
the evidence of Kulkarni, further observed that the licence
(Exhibit-79) showed that it had been issued in favour of
'M/s.Alfide International Private Ltd', whereas the name of the
Company of the accused was 'M/s.Al Freight International Pvt.Ltd'.
The Magistrate also noted that the name of the accused no.1 in
the said licence had been shown as 'Lodus' (yksMl), whereas his
name as shown in the complaint was "Lordis" (ykWMhZl). The
Magistrate then observed thus :-
"Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said
that the present permission produced on record by
the witness Kulkarni is of the Company from whose
account the cheques in question are issued".
23 Indeed, the approach of the Magistrate and these
findings arrived at by him are perverse. The Magistrate
overlooked that the other particulars mentioned in the said licence
avk 17/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
tallied with the facts of the case as put forth by the complainant.
The Magistrate also overlooked that witness Kulkarni was not at
all questioned in the cross-examination about the discrepancies,
which were perceived by the Magistrate and mentioned by him
only in the judgment. Did the Magistrate seriously think that there
was another Company by name 'Alfide International Pvt.Ltd' and
that such Company had obtained a licence for a warehouse in the
same place, which according to the complainant, was given by him
to the accused? Did he really think that the names of the Directors
of the 'Alfide' Company and that of the accused Company were
also same except for small difference in the first name of one of
the Directors i.e. 'Lodus' instead of 'Lordis' ? If the Magistrate
thought such a coincidence possible, and rationally entertained a
theory that "the licence had been issued to some other Company
whose name - incidentally - was similar to that of the accused
Company, and that the names of its Directors also were similar to
the Directors of the accused Company, except for a small
difference between the first name of one of the Directors i.e.
'Lodus' instead of 'Lordis'", then it is rather unfortunate.
avk 18/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
24 The Magistrate also totally ignored and brushed aside
the evidence of the second witness Aira Bhaskar Rao, which
showed that during the period from 2006 to 2008, 'Al Freight
International Pvt.Ltd' had issued a number of cheques in favour of
'Amin Warehousing' and that all these cheques had been honored. It
did not occur to the Magistrate as to 'for what purpose the said
cheques had been given if at all there had been no transaction
between the complainant and the said Al Freight International
Pvt.Ltd'.
25 The Magistrate made certain observations in his
judgment while dealing with the point no.1 for determination as
framed by him. The said point was framed as ' whether complaint
filed by the complainant is maintainable', which has been
answered, as aforesaid, in negative by the Magistrate. While
arriving at such a negative finding, the Magistrate discussed the
validity of the leave and licence agreement that, which according
to the complainant was entered into between the parties. The
Magistrate expressed 'surprise' over the claim that the leave and
avk 19/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
licence agreement was oral, and held that the evidence regarding
the oral agreement was not admissible, and that the theory of the
complainant about the oral agreement could not be accepted.
This is also perverse. If inspite of the evidence of Kulkarni and
inspite of the statement of account produced by two witnesses
Aira Bhaskar Rao, the Magistrate did not believe that there was
some transaction between the complainant and the accused, then
the conclusion arrived at by him must necessarily be termed as
perverse. The Magistrate simply did not consider as to for what
purpose, if there was no transaction between the complainant and
the accused, the accused had been repeatedly giving cheques to the
complainant which cheques had been honoured, and the
complainant had received payment in respect thereof. Even if the
Magistrate was of the view that oral agreement for leave and
licence was not permissible, and that such agreement was void, he
could not have overlooked the provisions of section 65 of the
Contract Act. The question was whether the accused had, in fact,
been using the land of the complainant for the purpose of running
a warehouse thereon as per the agreement entered into by and
avk 20/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
between the parties. There was sufficient evidence to indicate
that the accused had been using the land of the complainant, had
been paying therefor; and it is only for a certain period that the
payment of the compensation could not be made because of the
dishonour of the cheques in respect of which complaint came to
be filed. When the accused were using the land of the
complainant, it cannot be said that that they were not liable to pay
compensation for such use and that 'the cheques issued by them
had not been in discharge of a legally enforceable liability.'
26 In this case, there was sufficient and satisfactory
evidence that there was a transaction between the parties whereby
the complainant had given their land to the accused for running a
warehouse thereon. The fact that the accused, in the past, had
issued cheques towards the compensation payable for the use and
occupation of such land of the complainant, supported the theory
of the cheques (which are the subject matter of the complaint in
question), having been issued towards the rent/compensation for
the use and occupation of the said land by the accused.
avk 21/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
Significantly, the accused did not suggest as to for what purpose,
and under what circumstances the cheques had been issued, if
they had not been issued towards compensation. In appreciating
the evidence, the Magistrate totally overlooked the provisions of
section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The finding
arrived at by the Magistrate that, 'that cheques had been issued in
discharge of a legal enforceable debt or other liability was not
proved', is patently incorrect and rather perverse.
27 There is not even internal and logical consistency in
the judgment rendered by the Magistrate, inasmuch as if he was of
the view that there was absolutely no connection between the
complainant and the accused, he ought to have thought of some
plausible reason or explanation of the cheques that had been
given to the complainant by the accused. It may be observed that
no plausible theory for having issued the cheques was put forth by
or on behalf of the accused and all that was done was a simple
denial of each and every fact including the fact of having issued
the cheques itself, though in their examination under section 313
avk 22/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
of the Code, the accused have themselves stated that the cheques
had been issued by the Company - Al Freight International Pvt.
Ltd. They have also not commented upon the statement of
account filed by the second witness Aira Bhaskar Rao, showing
that a number of cheques had been issued by the Company 'Al
Freight International Pvt.Ltd' in favour of 'Amin Warehousing' and
that all the cheques had been honoured.
28 The denial of the accused persons is ex-facie false.
29 In the cross-examination, it was suggested to the
witness - Constituted Attorney of the complainant - that the
signature on the cheques in question was not of the accused. It
was also suggested that there was no transaction between the
complainant and the accused. These suggestions have been
denied by this witness and the matter was left at that by the cross-
examiner. The evidence shows that to the demand notice
(Exhibit-53) issued on behalf of the complainant to the accused
Company - Al Freight International Pvt.Ltd - and its two Directors
Lordis Fernandes and Althiya Fernandes through the complainant's
avk 23/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
Advocate, a reply was given by the accused by a letter dated 29 th
March 2008 (Exhibit-57). In this letter, that there was a
transaction between the complainant and the accused has clearly
been admitted. There is no denial of having issued the cheques to
the complainant. The dispute raised vide this reply to the notice is
entirely different; and the substance thereof is that the accused had
been spending considerable amounts to develop the land in question,
and had invested their own monies for the development of the said
land. That, the complainant - Amin Warehousing Pvt.Ltd - had
secured benefits because of the amounts paid and invested by the
accused, but the accused had not received the expected benefits. An
offer has been given in the reply (Exhibit-57) that 'there should be
proper documentation of the transactions, and that after
reconciling the account statement, the amounts payable to Amin
Warehousing, could be paid.' It is possible that there is some
dispute between the complainant and the accused, and it is also
possible that according to the accused, the complainant has not
acted as per the understanding between the parties. However, inspite
of giving such a reply to the notice of demand, the accused have not
avk 24/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
explored this aspect of the matter during the trial. They have not
tried to show - or even barely assert - that there was some other
explanation behind the issuance of the cheques, or that there was
some other reason for not paying the amount of the cheques. If
that was so, the accused were required to render such a theory
probable or plausible, but the accused have resorted to false and
vague denials. They even denied having replied to the demand
notice, obviously to wriggle out of the admissions contained
therein. They went to the extent of denying the issuance of
cheques or their signatures on the same. It would mean that the
complainant had forged not only the cheques, but also forged
another document (Exh.57) purporting to be the reply of the
accused to the demand notice under clause (b) of the proviso to
Section 138, but the accused would not do anything about such
serious offences committed by the complainant and would only be
satisfied by denying everything. This is absurd. If the
complainant wanted to create a forged document purporting to be
the reply of the accused to the demand notice just to show
admissions of the accused, the complainant would have made
avk 25/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
many more serious and damaged admissions therein. When the
complainant's case was categorical, the bare denials of the accused
would not be sufficient to raise a doubt about the truth of the
complainant's version when the testimony of the witnesses
examined by the complainant supported the theory of the
complainant, and the story of the complainant was not shaken in
any manner by the cross-examination.
In my opinion, the complainant had been successful in
establishing its case against the accused persons. The finding of
the Magistrate that the Company 'Al Freight International Pvt.Ltd'
had not been made an accused, was as discussed earlier, was
patently incorrect, and thus, the question of the complaint not
being maintainable on that account, did not arise. Further, the
Magistrate's conclusion that there was no transaction between the
parties and that therefore, the cheques had not been proved to
have been issued in discharge of a legal enforceable debt or other
liability, was also patently incorrect. This was a case where the
Magistrate should have held the accused guilty.
avk 26/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
31 The order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate being
contrary to law, needs to be interfered with.
32 Appeal is allowed.
33 The impugned judgment and the order of acquittal is
set aside.
34 The un-numbered accused i.e. the Company 'Al Freight
International Pvt.Ltd', as also the accused no.1 - Mr.Lordis D'Costa
Fernandes and the accused no.2 - Mrs.Althiya Lordis Fernandes
are convicted of an offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, and each of them is sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac only). In default of
payment of fine, the accused no.1 - Mr.Lordis D'Costa Fernandes
and accused no.2 - Mrs.Althiya Lordis Fernandes shall suffer SI
for a period of six months.
35 If the amount of fine is realised, an amount of
Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lac only) therefrom shall be
paid to the legal heirs of the original complainant.
avk 27/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
36 Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J)
avk 28/29
904-APPEAL-351-2013.doc
CERTIFICATE
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
Judgment/Order.
avk 29/29
