Request to send copy of Judgment

KANDE VENKATESH GUPTA (Querist) 15 September 2008 This query is : Resolved
Dear Members,
I am in urgent need of the following Judgments

2003 STPL DC 117 M.P., between Surendra Singh Vs. Shanker Joshi, Date of Judgment is 29-10-2002.

2004 STPL(DC) 322 P & H between M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs. Sohan Lal, Date of Judgment is 14-09-2001.

If any of our member are having, please send me copy of the Judgment either by courier, e-mail, for which act I shall be grateful to them. I undertake to pay costs of zerox and courier charges by depositing the required amount into their bank account.

My address:
K.VENKATESH GUPTA
ADVOCATE
H.No: 1-1-16/1/2/A
JAWAHARNAGAR, RTC CROSS ROADS
HYDERABAD - 500 020 (A.P.)
PH.No: 9885808021/040-27650240.
E-Mail: venkateshgupta_kande@yahoo.co.in

Follow Query

Report Abuse

sanjay kumar patibandla (Expert) 16 September 2008
2003 STPL(DC) 117 MP
Madhya Pradesh High Court

(HON'BLE S. L. KOCHAR, J.)

SURENDRA SINGH
VERSUS
SHANKAR JOSHI

Crl. Revn. No. 609 of 2002 - Decided on 29.10.2002

Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Identity of cheque — Dishonour cheque was No 278548 — However, Cheque in dispute had no 278549 — Complainant failed to establish the cheque in dispute to be the dishonoured cheque — Held, conviction and sentence set aside — Accused acquitted.
[Para 10 and 11]

ORDER

1. This revision petition, has been filed by the applicant against judgment dated 05.09.2002 passed by II ASJ Ujjain, in Criminal Appeal No. 79/02, arising out of order dated 09.05.02 passed in Case No. 1869/02, by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain, thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act") and sentencing him 6 months R 1 with fine of Rs. 3000/- and compensation of Rs. 20000/-.

2. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court was that complainant/ NA No.l has filed criminal complaint against applicant on the ground that as the relations were cordial between the parties and as the applicant was in need of funds, on the assurance of return the same, complainant/non-applicant Shankar Joshi gave him total Rs. 32,478.40. On reminder, applicant issued 2 cheques dated 23.10.91 bearing Nos. 278528 and 278533 drawn on State Bank of India, Sarafa Br., Ujjain amounting to Rs. 10,200/- and Rs. 12,800/-respectively, but on presenting the cheques for encashment in the Bank the same were returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds in A/C No. 1/27. The cheques were returned on 1.11.1991.

3. It is, further alleged that the applicant issued cheque No. 278549 dated 1.11.91 amounting to Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the non-applicant towards repayment of the aforesaid amount but the cheque was again returned on 04.01.92 because of exceeding payment in that account. The amount is also showing overdraft beyond the prescribed limit. Therefore, non-applicant issued notice dated 13.01.92 which was returned with an endorsement" refused to accept notice". Again, on 14.01.92 intimation was sent to the applicant but the same was also returned. Since within 15 days from 14.01.92 payment was not made by the applicant, complaint was filed within limitation. Learned Trial Court held the applicant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as indicated above.

4. The applicant has been represented by his Counsel whereas complainant/ NA No.l remained absent and also not represented by any Counsel, though served.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that cheque in dispute was bearing No. 278549 amounting to Rs. 10,000/- whereas at the time of recording of the statement under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. photocopy of the intimation letter, Exh. P/2-A, was filed. This intimation letter was written about return of cheque No. 278548 for Rs. 10,000/-. This fact is clear from the documents
Exh. P/2-A. The same is the factual position in document Exh. P/3-A. Document Exh. P/2-A and Ex. P/3-A are disclosing the fact that cheque No. 278548 was returned because it exceeded arrangement whereas the disputed cheque Ex. P/l - C bears No. 278549. All these are photostat copies of the original documents and were filed at the first instance by the complainant in Court. When the Statement of the complainant was recorded after appearance of the applicant, he filed original intimation letter, which is Exh. P/2 and in the said letter issued by the State Bank of India, Sarafa Branch, Ujjain manipulation and interpolation, by striking out No. 278548 and writing No. 278549, was done in different ink. This shows that in original letter. Ex. P/2, cheque NO. 278549 and in Ex. P/3-C (photostat copy of Ex. P/3 is also shown as Ex. P/3A) is not an original copy of Ex. P/3A, thereby meaning the non-applicant being a Bank employee, got separate docu

sanjay kumar patibandla (Expert) 16 September 2008
2004 STPL(DC) 322 P&H
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

(HON'BLE K. S. KUMARAN, J.)

M/S. KUMAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES KAPURTHALA
VERSUS
SOHAN LAL

Criminal Misc. No, 11506-M of 1998 Decided on 14.9.2001

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — CrPc 1973 — Section 482 —— Different numbers of cheques in complaint and those introduced into evidence Held — Such defect goes very deep in the matter — Complainant can not be allowed to supplement the complaint by giving the number of fresh cheques - complaint quashed.
[Para 46 to 54]
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Complainants clubbed four cheques in a single complaint — It is not such a defect which goes to the root of matter. Hence, complaint in question need not be quashed on this ground.
[Para 26]

Case Referred :
Anita v. Anil K. Mehra, 1996 (1) R.C.R. 257
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kandimala Subbaiah and another, AIR 1961 S.C. 1241
Station Shox Put. Ltd. Co. and others v. Auto Tensions (P) Ltd., 1994(1) Recent CR 3
Printo Stick v. H.C. Oswal, 1996 (2) RCR (Crl.) 375
S. Kiran u, L.C. Corporation, 1994 (2) Civil Court Cases 425
Mis. Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1057
Chand Rattan Newar v. Shayam Rattan Newar, 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 416
M/s Mahaplasto Ltd. v. M/s Bhushan Steels and Strips Ltd., 2000 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal 557
Narinder Kumar v. Harnam Singh, 2000 (3) R.C.R. 706
Shanku Concretes Put. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 2000 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 258
U. P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Modi Distillery;, AIR 1988 S.C. 1128
Vinayagam v. Subhash Chandran, 2000 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 4
K. Subramanian v. Kamakshi Extractions, 1999 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 253

JUDGMENT

K. S. Kumaran, J. :—1st respondent – Sohan Lal Viz lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Annexure P -1) before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar against petitioners—(1) M/ s. Kumar Rubber Industries, (2) Ashok Kumar Viz (partner of Kumar Rubber Industries) and 2nd respondent—Mrs. Neelu Viz (also partner of Kumar Rubber Industries), wherein the following material allegations are found.

2. The complainant—Sohan Lal, his sons Ashok Kumar, Arun Kumar and Neelu wife of Ashok Kumar were partners of the firm—M/s. Kumar Industries as per the partnership deed dated 1.10.1995. On account of disputes amongst the partners, complainant—Sohan Lai and his son—Arun
Kumar retired from the partnership by the retirement deed dated 17.6.1996. At that time, the account of the partnership were gone into and a sum of Rs. 5,18,698.33 was found due to the complainant from the partnership by way of his share of the assets which he was surrendering to the continuing partners. This amount was payable by the containing partners namely, Ashok Kumar and Neelu and in order to discharge the above said liability, Ashok Kumar issued cheques detailed as follows :

(1) No. 466337 dated 18.11.1996 for Rs. 95,561/-,

(2) No. 466338 dated 23.12.1996 for Rs. 1,23,137.33,

(3) No. 466339 dated 23.1.1997 for Rs. 1,50,000/-,

(4) No. 466340 dated 28.2.1997 for Rs. 1,50,000/-.

In favour of the complainant drawn on Canara Bank Jalandhar for and on behalf of the firm and the partners. At the time of issuing the cheques, the accused assured that they would be honoured. The accused after issuing the cheques, requested the complainant to delay the presentation of these cheques for some time as he had not been able to arrange for the requisite funds to meet the cheques, which request was conceded by the complainant.

3. On 24.2.1997, accused handed over to the complainant a banker cheque No. 800757 dated 24.2.1997 for Rs. 63,561/- issued by Canara Bank, Mai Hiran Gate, Jalandhar and tod him to adjust the said payment towards cheque No. 466337 dated 18.11.1996 promising that the balance amount of the cheque would be paid in cash on the next day but he did not do so.

4. The complainant presented the aforesaid fou