Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayashree Sudheendra vs M/S Suchita Industries on 4 January, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
E)aI.ed: This the 4"" daxy DfJe1IIuz'II'y 12010
BEFORE
THE HON'BI,E MR JUSTICE K.N. KESI-"IA.W»\ NA..RA§fANA' V' "
CRIMINAL APPEAL N.O.€>25:/200? A
BETWVEEN:
SMT JAYASHREE SUDHI:I«:NID.IeAv--_ _
w/0 SUDHEENDRA' » A '
AGED ABOUT 46 YRS" * ,. . _
R/ATVAGHDEVI, NG I004/;%§_ I3 CROS_S._
24 MAIN. BANA3HAN;KARI».I'I STAGE 1 A "
BANGALORE 2
APPEZLLANI'
{By SAD-I,Ii;ELAi%gRIS'§«INAN. A'Ii)v'.' I
AND '
I I NI/S"SDCI--II<I*A>INIi3'uSTRIES
_ " R.[3GISTF.._RE3D PARTNERSI--ill?' FIRM.
;_/--\T PU'YTENAi-'-'EALLI EX'I'£-ZNSION
gap NAGAR, 7'"! PHASE
_ 'BANGALORE 78
'"R.EP_ E3Y'~E"FS MANAGING EXECU'I'IVIji
121- SEETHARAM SHEBTTY
.. MANAGING EXECUTIVE
M/S SUCHITA INDUSTRIES
REGISTERED I>ARTNI«:RSI~IIp FIRM
AT I>U'I"rE:NAI-IAI,LI EXTENSION
J P NAGAR 7"-I PHASE
BANGALORE 78.
3 SR1 SACHIN S}-¥.I:7'i'TY
MANAGIN G PARTN ER
M / S SUC}-'¥.I'I'A IN{')US'1'I-{IES
E
'.3
I'LE'E'FI£ NA}--i.AL-1.,I IEXTE N S EO
J P NAG!-XR 7"" I-'HASE3
BANGALORE 78
RESPONDENTS,
{By Sri s G B;~~:AGAwA_N. /mv. FOR R1&R3 '\ SRE. PRABHAKAR L. S}--II~3'i'"l'Y. ADV. FOR R2 CRLA FILED U/S. 378 cR_,En,c_. 1>R;.+x"YIN{5.;_';'.;' C)'w ASIDE THE ORDER DT.1_3.4,0 7jj. I C.C.NO.6632/O5 ON "mg FILE O4I4*__'I"f£I3 x2~<:'1_~,;1\'jcV:xru\/:.';.4 xxjv ADDL. SMALL JU.DGI;§ £s.{:;'0R:§ - AcQUm'1NG THE REsPoN:§1L:m€_T/AccD'sEt3 THE OFFENCE P/U/S. £3.F§ G_F Nfi. % TH{S APPEAL comx?-f3"EN.1-«I€*L§§.,"};.EAIz1NG THES DAY. 'rm: c§)L.sj:rA'e':f11:>r:*.;:I;'§'\'"/:1«?;_;§:Ir":I:): F70:,i;0w:NG:
'fP1--i_$ va1V3 p¢e1 1._ b'L'i'I.'1"bb(Vi!CI' secttion 378 of C1'.P.C is __aga{ihs': ..... the judgment" and order dated : passed by the 22m! Addl. Chief £3/Ié't1'0pc)'I£-t.aii Magistrate. Ballgefiore in C.C.'*N 'd;.6632/2005 acqui'{ting the respandents .a_cii'_e_1sed for the offence punishable under se(_:tic_m 138 " i')f the .Neg()1.iab1e 111s1,rur1*:em';s Act;
2. The appeiiant~c0mp3ai11am filed 21 private complaint L1/S 200 of Cr.P.C ellieging offclicc
-1 1 ptmishable under section 138 of the NI. Act. in t.he complaint it was interalia {'.()l'1l.€'.l'1dE'.d that'_ the complainant worked a General Manager ins..thed71.$E respondent accused firm from and she resigned her job w1t.hmefl'eet-,'.i'rt3rn:"':1..'S;2'0O«1V4 and thereafter by letter dated ivtehe23%"a1ec::{i§1~sed_:
called upon the appellant'---._to e'ellee.t_ r L' amount. Accordingly th.eu:'appellant"eo_lAleet:ed the cheque dated H.9."C'iT-fern _Rs.2,42,308/~ drawn on Bank__ of by the accused t'()xw'ard_s"«disefia.1fge[of its liability due towards gratuit.y..j am0unt".V'and----._when the said Cheque was presemed f'or__Veneashment. the same was returned , 'w'it:11_a_ba'nket's endorsement: 'payment: stopped by Immediately she issued a legal ne'tiee_t.o"the respondents accused Calling upon them 2 it t:0-pay" the aniount, eovered under the cheque. Inspite AV'§Of'.I"€C€lp'[', of the same. they have failed to pay the a.n'10unt'. as such they have eomniitited the offence punishable under sec:t:i0n 138 of the l\i.I. Act.
ééi |\ fi/.
2...«»' 4
3. The learned Ma_sgisi.1'at.e took c()gnizance of the offence etlleged in the cornpiaint and after ordering registration of criminal case. is§:'§'i;1ced summons to the respondents-accused.g~~--..'_;VU__p€;n"
appearance, the accused pleaded i1ot._..gLvi_i'i«~'CY _the"
accusation made against the:.rfn a.ndjj. been tried.
4. During the the ""eeVorriplainantc examined herself a:§:PW- "xEx.P1 to P12.vi"During "'e>giamina'i'i'o'i1 under section 313 C1*.P."C.,--.the. ac.cuVé;edi'i'--~denied all the incriminating ci1'cL_1msta;ncVes,f. 111 d'et"ei1(re. the accused examined .';'3:\_i--"»i: avc.cL1&iedV"'as'VDW-1 and got marked EXD1 to specific defence of the accused that the cheque for Rs.2.42.308/~. they Aynoticedfi' that there was an error in calculating the amount on the basis of the iota} years of service .ri'endere.d by the (;romp]a.ii121ni. and on proper caicL1]ation._ they noticed that the complainant. has served only for 22 years and on that basis the complainant is entitied only for a st.in"_i..___ of Rs_2.22,115/~ and not Rs.2.-42.308/-- in the cheque and therefore immediately V' the mistake. they informed present. the cheque and also instrL1ct.ion to the It"
circumstances, Kyith an endorsement 'stop also their defence notice issued by the "ttalled upon the collect the cheque for amoLint'. due to her towards graitiiity, Areturriing t.he old cheque issued for .' and inspite of that. the complainant.
up, instead she filed a proceedings beéforeuthe Asst. Labour Commissioner and by his Aiordzervwiidated 29.3.07, he has determined the total A'taInou'nt payable t.o the complainant. towards gratuity ' at Rs.2,22,115/--. The1'efore. it was their contention that they have not Committed any offence ptmishabie under section 138 of the NI. Act and even on the '%§»/ (1 date when the cheque was issued and preseI"1ted. there was sufficient amount" in their bank 'aee0L1Iit__._
5. Learned Magistrate after hear'i'r'1g.'.e'_* sides and on assessment of oral al'1d_~"d'C3(iI1.ffi€.l1f-a1""j[_"
evidence, held that the evide'nee;_-'ref; reeorfd elearijgj establishes that there wasfV_d.jsputje..as to of service rendered bythe eQrn'p»1vainpant..andv_invVi§view of the difference in the"~afiIn.0'L1nt;:.th'ef2"espQndent issued stop payments'instrue'ti0n":td I:>Van...'ié<"»"'a.nd that even as onthefdatei?-:0'f 'issuaiiee"'"of cheque and on its prese11ta,t'ionf'tie-~._the"'»,b'anker, there was sufficient amount in the ae'c:o»1f1nt.""df the respondent, as such. tehe__respEjnd'ent's have not committed any offence p_u'i1ish'ab_le t1i'zC1.(_3_Ii«'S€CtiOI1 138 of the NJ. Act. » 1C-0_hseq:.;ent'i.y__ the learned Magistrate acquitted the if vA'i:=.Pv>eing aggrieved by the said judgment. of ae'qtzit.tal',v"the complainant has presented this appeal rrczngrant of special leave by this eourt. resp0n.dem:s have appeared. r;
6. Upon service of notice of this appeal. the 7'. Heard both sides and perused the :jec;0-r_d~s. The undisputed facts are that the e1p13e11;1~r'2.t" ~ employee under the I'€TS}3OI"id€*AI7:'F_§_54 acyictisedg V resigned her job with effect tram the cheque in questi011V'V._V:vL:i'er 11.9.04 was handed,.Q.ver the gratuity amou11t.E presented for eneashrnet1'§~_ 14.9.04 the drawer instmetion to his baI1Efi.'erm1V the said cheque.
was returned to the cOmD1aina11if The record also indicates that 'i:'nrhe»diat:e.1y t.11ei*eat't.ez'. the complainant issued a Ex.P4 dated 21.9.04 which has been rep1ied'a_si'.w'j:ier EZx.P10 dated 30.9.04. 111 Ex.P1O it has .bee11 clearly stated by the respondents accused '~_t'hat per their records. c0mp1a1'naI1t's service
-*st,art'ed from October 1981. as sueh she has completed only 22 years and therefore gratuity payable was Rs.2.22._11.'i3/M for 22 ye.=;:11-s and not >4 Rs.2.42.308/»-- me1'1tio11ed in the said cheque and therefore stop payment instruction was issued to.__t.he banker. It is also stated in the said reply complainant was also informed not to V' cheque. It is pertinent to 11o:r;'e""in~«ti'_1e_ there is specific averment made.__hyjA.the»respor1d'eh'tsV"
accused calling upon the 'e.o"rnp}.ainant.wtoy and collect Cheque forRs.2,2'2'§'\l"iVa.5',/gt"=in final settlement of gratuity old cheque issued for ease of the eomp_1ainant"th-a_t"on*re'ee_iptfof the said letter, she had approached tIhe""1*es'}:a,o4nde11ts accused and the 1"es_§pondents"refused to pay the admitted amount. ._x'The question as to whether the Completed 22 years or 24 years of ser'"-.ric'e_Was the subject matter of adjudication before it "the Asst. Labour Commissioner in a dispute raised by Complainant. After elaborate enquiry. the Asst. 'HLabour Commissioner on 29.3.07' determined the iota} service of the czymplainant as 22 years and that"
3», 9 she is emitied to gratuity of Rs.2.22. 1 15/» and therefore directed the respoikients e1e(:L1sec1 to pay the said amount with interest @ 10% pa from the _.c}~:--1;i'C_. 01." acceptance of resignation of the Corii.p1a:ihar11.i'7=-1A~- Against the said order. it app.ears_the ct5h1.ple1i'nai1i'i-. had filed an appeal before the 13y.
by order dated 27.8.09. t.11e"'"D%y. C'(:mi'i1issioi<ie'r"
affirmed the orderefz 'Commissioner. The evidence on recordfl _i«iidvi:ra1:--es that the respondents 'aetfused ehjt.oyeVd"e-ash7(:redi1 faciiity in Bankof._India,to_»4t.he'«t;tI1<1.e of Rs. 15 lakhs. This shows that i.he-ifeiiwas s'1..i_ffie.i"eeiit. arnouiit in the account of re.sponde.r1t.s a-::eu_sed on the date when the » he-hVeq;1e«.waa's:. issued and when it was presemed for '-ehii-ciasvhtifierijtf Having regard to the disp'ut.e regarding eritit,1eniet1t_ of the amount payable to the complaint Vti.owfe1rds §__§rat.uity. the respondent a(:(':used was forced ftt) issue stop payment. iI1S'[.I"1,l(3'(.i()l'1 to the banker.
9. Having I't'?gE1I'(i to the facts and c~.irci.1mstaiiees of the case._ in my citmsirlereci opinion.
-4 an the learned Magistrat_e is justified in holding that the resporident acetlsed are not guilty of the ()f_f_ence. punishable under section 338 of the N.i. Act. in disput.e that as per the det.ermir1at-ie"nv.eVf"':ut}1:e""eM' amount. by the Asst. COfHfI1iSSVi()"lA'1Vt3i'« &t.c).p:é1ifii_ tathe-.A Compiairiant, the resptindeliits'-._Q' acefused, «. 'i1:éi~are'». deposited the amount. Thei'ef0re', ' i7in_"€_i '"ei'ror having been eomniitted 1'earne'<i'V'IvIa§1st.rate. Accordingly, the facts of the case do not att1jac:t«._f.he Qffenee p.u'ii.isIf1a_i§1e under section 138 -no merit in this appeal and accordingly it is dismi'ssed.
, ,, . ..... -A I Judge Dvrz