Madras High Court
M/S.Griffin Seeds Corporation vs M/S.Samantha Trading Company on 1 August, 2022
Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01..08..2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Criminal Appeal Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.17459, 17488 & 17530 of 2019
M/s.Griffin Seeds Corporation,
Rep. By its Proprietor,
M.Amal Martin Singh
S/o. Martin,
Indira Nagar, Coimbaore 641036.
... Appellant in Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
-Versus-
1.M/s.Samantha Trading Company,
Rep. By its Proprietor,
Pradeep Narayanarao Deshpande,
Atpadi,
No.6, Yashasvi Chambers,
Mahaveer Nagar, Opp. Sangli High School,
Sangli, Maharashtra-416416.
2.State Rep. By
The Public Prosecutor
... Respondents in Crl.A.No.9811, 814 & 819 of 2011
1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
Prayer in Crl.A.No.811 of 2019:- Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.02.2019
passed in C.A.No.250 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 07.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court-II at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.97 of 2011.
Prayer in Crl.A.No.814 of 2019:- Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.02.2019
passed in C.A.No.252 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 07.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court-II at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore, in S.T.C.No.54 of 2012.
Prayer in Crl.A.No.819 of 2019:- Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.02.2019
passed in C.A.No.251 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 07.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court-II at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.125 of 2011.
For Appellant (s) : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan for
Appellant in all Appeals
For Respondent (s) : Mr.C.Mohan Raj for
Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan
for 1st respondent in all
Appeals
Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) for 2nd
respondent in all Appeals
2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
COMMON JUDGEMENT
These three criminal appeals are between the same parties arising out of the
same transactions.
2. The respondent/accused was prosecuted on three separate private
complaints made by the appellant/complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
alleging an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial,
by judgment dated 07.12.2015 in C.C.No.97, 2011, S.T.C.No.54 of 2012 and
C.C.No.125 of 2011, the appellant/accused was found guilty by the trial court for
offence under section 138 of the NI Act and accordingly, he was convicted and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Ten months and to pay a fine of
Rs.4000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by
the same, the accused preferred appeals in C.A.Nos.250, 252 & 251 of 2015 on
the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, and
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 28.02.2019, acquitted
the accused from the charge thereby allowing the appeal and reversing the
judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court. Challenging the reversal
3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
findings, the complainant have come up with these further appeals.
3. The case of the appellant is that the appellant/complainant and the
respondent/accused concerns had transactions, in and by which, the
appellant/complainant had to supply cotton seeds to the respondent/accused and
the appellant/complainant had supplied cotton seeds to the value of
Rs.21,48,000/- of which after giving credit to the amounts already paid by the
respondent/accused which is borne by the running accounts statement, there was a
balance of Rs.13,48,000/- in discharge of which, three cheques which are the
subject matter of these appeals were issued. Since the cheques were dishonored,
statutory notices were issued and the respondent/accused did not pay the amount,
but, only took a defence, as if he is not liable to pay any amount by way of reply
notice and therefore, the complaints were filed.
4. The trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record and had
convicted the respondent/accused. Upon filing of the appeals by the
respondent/accused, the first appellate court had acquitted the respondent/accused
4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
and hence, these three appeals are filed by the appellant/complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant taking this court
through the evidence on record would submit that it may be seen that even from
Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 marked by the accused that, as a matter of fact, there was
supply of seeds by the complainant. The said seeds were accepted by the
respondent/accused. As a matter of fact, third parties had only complained about
the quality of said seeds and the matter is pending in the different complaints and
also civil suit is pending between the parties. But, as far as the present
transactions are concerned, once seeds are supplied, the liability is clearly and
categorically proved by the complainant and when the presumption is in favour of
the complainant, the trial court ought not to have delved into the detail about the
nature of the supply of seeds, the cancellation by the Government and since in
respect thereof, already a separate suit is pending inter se between the parties, the
same can be considered in the said suit only wherein the complainant is duly
defending that he had made supplies as per the order and there is nothing wrong
with his seeds. Therefore, if the defence of the accused is accepted, in these
5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act itself, it cannot be concluded as if
the supply of the complainant is erroneous and therefore, once the transactions
are admitted by the accused and once the signatures of the accused in the cheques
are admitted, presumption under section 118 and 139 of the NI Act come to the
aid of the complainant and especially, in this case, where other documents are
also on record to have the running business transactions between the complainant
and the accused, the first appellate court completely erred in acquitting the
accused and therefore, he would submit that these are fit cases for this court to
exercise its appellate jurisdiction and upturn the findings of acquittal recorded by
the first appellate court into one as guilt as the view of the appellate court is not at
all the possible view.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit
that the first appellate court has re appreciated the evidence in detail and has
considered the fact that by Ex.D.1 in the respective cases, the cheques were
issued in advance towards the future liability. The future liability is the fact that
the appellant/complainant should supply the seeds as mentioned in the
6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
transactions. Admittedly, the complainant did not supply LRA seeds. Even the
Varalakshmi Seeds supplied by him was found to be faulty and the contract itself
was canceled and both parties were also facing proceedings in respect of the
same. As a matter of fact, the complainant has admitted in his cross examination
that he also took anticipatory bail in respect of criminal case given in the matter.
In that view of the matter, when the subsequent liability has not arisen, the
cheques which were originally issued at the inception of the transaction cannot be
presented and the liability cannot be involved and therefore, he would submit that
the first appellate court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused
the material records of this court.
8. Admittedly, in the instant cases, there are evidence by way of Ex.D.1 and
Ex.D.2 that totally 8 cheques, including the present three cheques, were handed
over by the respondent/accused at the inception of the transactions. In these kinds
of matters, the law has been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India
7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
in Sunil Todi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1174, whereunder it
has been held that even if the cheque has been handed over as security, in view of
the subsequent arising of the liability, cheques can be presented and encahsed.
There is no quarrel over the said proposition in this case. But, however, what is
in dispute is only whether or not actually the liability had arisen or not. In this
case, the first appellate court taking into consideration of the fact that the
complainant himself has admitted that LRA Seeds had not been supplied by him
and even the Varalakshmi seeds, which were supplied were found to be of
substandard quality and action were being taken against both the complainant and
the accused in respect of the said transactions. Therefore, came to the conclusion
on re-appreciation of the evidence that there was no any legal enforceable liability
as on the date of presentation of the cheques. The said findings cannot be held to
be not a possible view or perverse view so as to be upturned by this court in an
appeal against acquittal. Therefore, when the first appellate court in exercise of its
powers has re-appreciated the evidence in detail and has arrived at a finding of
acquittal, by giving various reasons thereof in detail in the Judgment and even if
one of the said reasons is the possible view, this court in an appeal against
8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
acquittal cannot reverse the finding of acquittal into one of guilt and therefore,
finding no merits, these Appeals are dismissed.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019 are
dismissed the judgment of acquittal recorded by the first appellate reversing the
conviction and sentence of the respondent/accused by the trial court is confirmed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.
Index : yes/no 01..08..2022
Internet : yes/no
Speaking / Non speaking Order
kmk
To
1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore.
9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.811, 814 and 819 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J.,
kmk
Crl.A. Nos.811, 814 & 819 of 2019
01..08..2022
10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
