AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.1126 of 2002 on the file of the XVI
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Madras, challenging the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras
made in Criminal Revision Case No.127 of 2003 dated 5.12.2003 confirming the order of dismissal passed by the learned XVI Metropolitan
Magistrate, Madras in Crl.M.P.No.3772 of 2002 in C.C.No.1126 of 2002 filed under Sections 251 and 257 of Criminal Procedure Code to
drop all further proceedings initiated under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner/accused.
The private complaint filed by the respondent on 17.1.2002 has been taken on file in C.C.No.1126 of 2002 under Sections 138 and 142 of
Negotiable Instruments Act stating that the cheque bearing No.463061 for Rs.1,51,250/- dated 22.11.2001 issued by the accused was
dishonoured and returned for ""Insufficiency of funds"" when presented for collection and therefore, the petitioner/accused is punishable under
Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also stated that the said cheque was issued towards the loan of Rs.1,25,000/-
borrowed on 20.4.2001 by the petitioner/accused with his wife V.Lakshmi, for which they also executed promissory note and after several
demands to repay the amount due on the promissory note, such cheque was issued.
The petitioner/accused filed Crl.M.P.No.3772 of 2002 under Sections 251 and 257 of Criminal Procedure Code to drop all further
proceedings stating that the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,51,250/- not towards loan of Rs.1,25,000/- on 20.4.2001 as claimed by
the complainant, but it was issued towards prior transactions in the year 1999-2000, for which purpose only he issued blank cheque in which the
amount and other particulars have been filled up latter by the complainant. It is also stated that the person, who signed in the complaint, has not
been duly authorised by the respondent company. The petition was opposed by filing counter denying the case of the accused.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the petition Crl.M.P.No.3772 of 2002 stating that already the evidence on the side of the
respondent/complainant was over and the accused was also questioned u/s 313(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the incriminating
evidence against the accused adduced on the side of the complainant and the petition Crl.M.P.No.3772 of 2002 as filed under Sections 251 and
257 of Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also stated that the authorisation letter has also been
filed along with complaint. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also stated that it is for the accused to prove that he issued only blank cheque for
the prior transactions. Such order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court,
Madras, in which order the learned Principal Sessions Judge pointed out that it is open to the complainant to fill up the blanks and negotiate it as
contemplated u/s 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and even assuming that the blank cheque was issued by the accused on 22.11.2001, the
accused filed the petition Crl.M.P.No.3772 of 2002 only on 23.9.2002 to delay the proceedings. The Order is challenged in this Criminal Original
Petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the stand taken by the petitioner in Criminal M.P.No.3772 of 2002, further argued that the
blank cheque was issued by the accused for the prior transactions and that the person, who signed in the complaint, has no authority. The learned
counsel also submitted that inasmuch as it is stated by the complainant that Rs.1,25,000/- was advanced by way of loan to the accused and his
wife, for which they executed a promissory note and to recover such amount, the accused after several demands, issued the cheque, the
complainant has not proved such a debt and as per Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, if any amount advanced by way of loan exceeds
Rs.20,000/-, it should be by issuing cheque.
The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that no question of law was involved in this matter and though the complaint was
filed as early as 17.1.2002, which was taken on file in C.C.No.1126 of 2002, in which evidence was let in on the side of the complainant and on
such evidence, the accused was also questioned with regard to the incriminating evidence against him u/s 313(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code,
the petition Crl.M.P.No.3772 of 2002 in C.C.No.1126 of 2002 has been filed to drop the further proceedings only on 23.9.2002 to delay further
proceedings.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petition Crl.M.P.No.3772 of 2002 filed under Sections 251 and 257 Cr.P.C.
is not maintainable since Section 251 Cr.P.C. relates to substance of accusation to be stated in a summons case and Section 257 Cr.P.C. relates
to withdrawal of complaint at any time before passing of final order.
As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the person, who signed, has no authority to file the complaint, it
appears, such authority was filed as document No.1 along with the complaint and referred to as a resolution. As regards the case of the accused
that he only issued blank cheque, in which particulars have been filled up latter, relating to the prior loan transactions, such a case is to be proved
by the accused only during enquiry. It is pointed out by the learned Principal Sessions Judge that even assuming that the accused gave blank
cheque, u/s 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is open to the complainant to fill up the blanks. Further, it appears, before filing the
complaint, the complainant caused lawyer notice dated 3.12.2001, which was served upon the accused on 11.12.2001 as per postal
acknowledgment. No reply has been sent by the accused.
With regard to the case of the accused that as per Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, if any amount advanced by way of loan exceeds
Rs.20,000/-, it should be by issuing cheque, if that be so, it is for the authorities to initiate action against the complainant. u/s 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, there shall be a presumption 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, or any debt or other liability. No question of law is involved in this case. The petitioner/accused has made no case to
interfere with the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in confirming the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai made in
Crl.M.P.No.3772 of 2002 to drop all further proceedings in C.C.No.1126 of 2002 and accordingly dismissed the Criminal Revision Case
No.127 of 2003.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The order dated 5.12.2003 made in Criminal Revision Case No.127 of 2003 is
confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the petition Crl.M.P.No.462 of 2004 is closed.