DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
16th December 2020
BENCH:
Justice Dharmesh Sharma
PARTIES:
In re:
Sumit Bhasin ……………(Petitioner)
Amrit Pal Singh Bedi …………….(Respondent)
SUBJECT
The petitioner/revisionist after being summoned to face proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, had filed a criminal revision petition against the order.
FACTS
- The complainant is the respondent in the present revision case.
- The accused No.1 is a Private Limited Company and the accused No.2-GuneeetBhasinand the accused No.3-Sumit Bhasin were the directors and the accused No.4- Ms. Summy Basin, who has been handling its day to day operations along with other accused.
- After being asked by the accused, the complainant paid to the accused Company, an amount of Rs.44,60,000/- and such amount was agreed to be reimbursed on behalf of the accused No.1. The accused No.2 to 4 had failed to make the payment at the specified time and therefore they entered into a Memorandum of Undertaking and agreed to make the payment.
- The accused Nos. 2 to 4 issued a cheque in the name of the complainant of RS.47,53,519/-,but it was returned dishonoured by his banker for the reason of "Account Blocked".
- Thereafter, the complainant had served a legal notice to the accused persons, which were deliberately avoided and the same was sent again by vide e-mail. There was no response. He had filed a complaint against the accused No.1 to 4 before the Trial Court.
- The Court held that there were prima facie sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused Nos. 1to 3 and not accusedNo.4 of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Hence, the Court issued summons against accused Nos.1to3.
- The accused No.1 had filed a revision petition against the summoning order.
IMPORTANT PROVISION:
Negotiable Instruments Act,1881
- Section 138: When the cheque is dis-honoured for insufficiency of funds or any of the prescribed reasons, the one who is at defaulter can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with a fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or both.
Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 397: Calling for records to exercise powers of revision:The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its or his local jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order is suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or his bond pending the examination of the record.
ISSUES
- Whether or not the entire transaction with the complainant was done without the knowledge or acceptance of the accused No. 1?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
- While disposing of the connected criminal revision petition of the other defendant against the same order, the court had expressed, it may be read as a part and parcel of this order and the same could not have been repeated for the sake of brevity.
- The court held that the complainant has a prima facie case.
- He was well acquainted with the accused no.2 to4 and shared a cordial relationship with them. The services rendered to the accused company had acknowledged its liability vide a confirmation letter.
- The facts of the case were suggested the huge amount advanced to the accused company’s belly, not to the accused individually.
- There was no specific denial of the side of the accused that he had no role in the entire negotiation/transaction which was in relation with the complainant.
CONCLUSION
The criminal revision dismissed against the other defendant may read as part and parcel of this order and shall apply mutatis mutandi. The Court had found no illegality, infirmity, or impropriety in the summoning order passed by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the criminal revision petition had dismissed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
