M/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court

M/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010

Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy

Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 30"" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010

BEEORE

THE HON'BLE MRJDSTICE C R KUMARASWAMY 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4906/ZGIO
BETWEEN:

1 M/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERE UNDER
COMPANIES ACT,  _  
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFI=I<:E--~AT NO';-28, .
ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE 42    ._  
REP. BY ITS DIRECTORS   ' 
MR. T.PHA§\l§ MAHESH 

MR. A.M.SHARATH CHANDRA.  ;g  "

2 SRITVPHANIAM-AHE§IH* 

S/O SRI T C ASI-WJARTH'NA'R4A\'AN
AGED AB0u_T'4S YEARs»,__ , '
DIRCTOR, _   _  
M/S DUO PROPERTI_ES'.(P)4...!;TD.,
No.23, DLSOOR ROAD,'
BA.Nt3ALORE 42."   ..... .. »

CO' I j

» ]Vi'R_A. .M;«.SHA'RATH CHANDRA
  '$10 A _c..MDNIvEjNKATE GOWDA
AGED Aar;:II_T-49' YEARS,
DIRCTOR  *
M/"S DLIO PROPERTIES (P) i_TD.,
 i\fO.28, L;I_SOOR ROAD,
' BANGAEORE 42.  PETITIONERS

 (4E5YOSIRI»...ARAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S. A K S

" ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)



Ex)

AND'

MR P. OAYANANDA PAI
s/O LATE P NARASIMHA PAI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
No.10/1, LAKSHMENARAYANA
COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR
PALACE ROAD,

BANGALORE 52.  RESPO-F§,E>ENf'  '

(av M/S. s MAHESH & COMPANY, ADVOCATES.) 

CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C Ew?THE"A~DvO*CATE' 
RETmONERs PRAYING THAT THIS HON..'aL--E COURT 'M'AY'=--, ESE 
RLEASED TO QUASH THE v'E'R.T1RE  r>ROCE_EDw1NOs,  IN . A

C.C.NO.27097/O9 PENDING ON T1-i'E,,"E1LE_O'.--~, THE; xv ACMM,
BANGALORE.  .  

has CRL.R IS COMINO4"ONAEO.i:giA;;>M"Iss:rO'N.Ti-us DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;  '   .. 

This:._;VCriVrriiini;'=x1;?. _PvetitiO:n~..'_.is fil-etiﬂv under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. by the "$ear'ned"fOr the petitioners praying to

squash the entire .;§roceed'irng'§ in C.C. NO.27092/2009 pending

I-','vQn"theV'f--iIAe  XV..,{\dd|.AC'iVi'IViV, Bangaiore.

 ¢¢'VIV"--h,avAe"heard learned Counsei for the petitioners

 as wen asztearhed Counsei for the respondent.

 *  The primary facts of the Case is as under:

One Mr.P Dayananda Pai has presented a Complaint

iii"--«before the XV Addl. Chief Metropelitan Magistrate, Bangaiore.



The accused has issued a cheque bearing No.197975 dated

26.03.2009, drawn on The Dhanalakshmi Bank .g'Ltd.,

M.G.Road Branch, M.C3.Road, Bangalore, for 

Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Only). The s'ajd;ehe'e§ie'.'iigtis A'

was presented for encashment ehdrthe .;sain'we_VV'wVas

dishonoured on the ground of "insufficie'n_t'1funds"..'_--ThereaVt'ter,d°

Iegai notice was issued on  In 'sp_"i_teé"'1oii"ilegai
notice, the accused failed toggzay the  and thereyby they
have alieged to have commiitited ani:offe.n.ceAi_'.punishable under

Sections 138 and gee, at NeggotiieibIe.ai'nsttrosae'nts Act, 1881.
4. it  Sriiﬁavi E5 Naik! learned

Senior Couinset  of the petitioners that the

order sheet iditagtedvv 24f{.3"i5.'f21:3:'Cj.94'Vhas not been signed by the

'.|_e.arned,,._%:i0'\ddi. CM"M;_.V:i3anga|ore. He further submits that

Acognijzjancertake'n_by the learned Magistrate is without

apoiica't-ionx"o?_"_v.mind": The cheque hasnot been presented

'within  tn-onths from the date of handing over of the cheque

 :co_mo'i'ainant. The attention of this Court was invited to

 $ge.ct'i~on' 138(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.



4
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies on the

ruiing in the case of Surendra Singh and Others Vs State of
Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 SC 194, wherei'n.""a.t
para 14 of the said ruling reads as under: V l

":14. As soon as the judgment is del.iv.e_r'ed',:VA.l.:' .

that becomes the operative prono'u'nce'mtei--it of  

Court. The law then provides forthne"manner..i'ri  

which it is to be authenticai:led.._Vand'made cert-games 
The rules regarding this difter..._V'%bii_t they not
form the essence of"'th_e ma'tter:':'aun'd.._if there
irreguiarity in carrying 'hthemv   curable.
Thus, if a judgment haAp;:ven's r:o«tv._to'.abeV;s*.i:g'n.ed and

is inadvertentlﬁgi-.acted ={o"n a'nVd"-"'e><.e.cuted, the

proceedings.:':iVf,con§equ'e~nVt- on'._"'it"lViNou|d be valid
because  can be shown to have
been validéity delii/'ered':,""miould stand good despite
defects  the 'mode of its subsequent

  aut'\ri:e!_It:ica_tion.l'  ---------- 

 Vile VaEso'«V..re!ies:]on another ruling in the case of Ashok

'AA°i'eshwa'nt  Vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar

l'4ﬂ:"a'1?d'anotherreported in (2001) 3 scc 726, in Head Notes

 .t4?i_'an'd_VVB', it is held that:

"A. Six months' period has to be

calculated for purpose of proviso (a) from the





date mentioned on the face of cheque and not

from any eariier date when drawer actualiy gave 

cheque to drawee --«-- High Court rightly dismissedQ"»_ii'-

appe|iant--drawer's appeai against issue of pro__c;ess--@'~--.'..i'  » A4

against him --«~ Words and Phrases ~ "post__d"a.tedf_1'~.Vi"

cheque".

8. Post dated cheque, remains a gb.i.l*.:'of"

exchange tiii the date writtenjyong the ir'__ace._o"{  

on that date it becomes a cheq_u:e.__ 

And it is further heid'thra,t'¥iV::'

"For pr'osee'utin:g a  offence
under Sec_ti'o"n_«...i§8':'-of  'rixiegiofi/a.?3bl_e Instruments
Act it_isc__ign_evjtar}i;e__  is presented to
the bianigerxwi'i:hinf9a%  offsix months from the
date on which  within the period of
its vaiidiityﬂewhichever=i.§' earlier. when a post

dated cheque iisiwritten or drawn, it is oniy a bili

 iof""exq§.f1:an:Vgre_.and so iong the same remains a bid

  '"of_  provisions of Section 138 are not

"ao'piicabi*ecj';to1'the said instrument. The post dated

cheque 'becomes a cheque within the meaning of

 Sectiovni' 138 of the Act on the date which is

 Vw'ri'tten thereon and the 6 months' period has to

be reckoned for the purposes of proviso (a) to
 Section 138 of the Act from the said date."

»,,
'-J;

"av?

t



6

6. The learned counsel for respondent relies on

Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ---- Presurnptions

as to negotiable instruments sub clause (b) reads as ,u.n.d_er":'  

(b) as to date ---- that every negVot:i'a,ble1.A_i.'*~Vi %

instrument bearing a date was rr}~a'de*--or d"rawn:Aion_ V  

such date."

7. It is the contention of the."ll»earneVCl.Slenhivor'Counsel
that since the ordersheet dated  notsigned, the

proceedings has to be quashed.'   

8. Section»,  Qf  freadismas follows:
 §V"Ei:ndin,gV,_ or'  viwhen reversible

by reaso n _of'e_rro_r,' « o m.i_s'si_or=._ or i rreg u la rity.

(1)',_ i:3ubVj'e_c'te.to' ytheprovisions hereinbefore

con§ta"in,ed, xno_fi'n'ding, sentence or order passed
 2,.,'Court ofH'c'o'rnpetent jurisdiction shall be
' ;revers:ed=  -altered by a Court of appeal,
 ~confirrrra'tvion~li,,.o'r revision on account of any error,
om_issi__c5ri  irregularity in the complaint,
 sumrnons, warrant, proclamation, order,
 ijuld-gment or other proceedings before or during

'Wtrial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under

 = ..fthis Code, or any error, or irregularity in any

sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion

'3'; .»'
'ﬁivi



of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been

occasioned thereby.

(2) In determining whether any 

omission or irregularity in any proceeding u'n'de-rel' '

this Code, or any error, or irre.guiarity'"i'n'"-a_;j.y'"-  V
sanction for the prosecution has ,o.ccTasi--oned*-.
failure of justice, the Court, _sha|l4"hAa've reg.a.'rd:'to'* V
the fact whether the objectio:n~~._,cou|.d .an'd_ 
have been raised at an earlie_rw_ystao.e*in the

proceedings."

9. in the;~ca'seyI'of  Mg  Abraham and
Others in 'Goenka Vs Padam
Sambhav:._:VJain_' ' in .' ck/.A.No, 84 9/2002, Han'

Narain Niciarn _  Bihar and Others in

cm,Ns.843/2092dreamed in (2002) 6 scc 570 at para

'21 reads  uitder;

  a grave iilegality is committed,

Athe su;3erii.»oAr courts should not interfere. They

_ shoulvdi':.allow the Court which is seized of the
2 it rraatteir to go on with it. There is always an
""..VVap'peE|ate Court to correct the errors. One should
keep in mind the principle behind Section 465
Cr.P.C. Any and every irreguiarity or infraction

w ;'



of a procedural provision cannot constitute a
ground for interference by a superior Court

unless such irregularity or infraction has caused..'W'

irreparable prejudice to the party and requiresjto'§.j«.'..l'  » A4

be correct at that stage tends to defeat   b

of justice instead of serving tlio'se--«.en"ds._..  V

should not be that a man with e'nAoughA.'imea_n'sis   

able to keep the law at bay,..__ Thatiwigruld   if

the failure of the very system'';'i<'s.'{''i» ' l '  

10. In the decisioVri--~..._.'tj:~f_ /\?_Iof;_arrie_c:i.l""f<2'ayat Mulla Vs
Emperor reported in AIR.-1"Ei.3:{3  the Hon'ble
High Court of Ranc}.oofi'i'lh._eldbiasunder j:;--  

ffrg)  s§:f3e§§6 and 367 --

Omission _fto5*_.w_rit?e J"UKlg'mer*:-t before passing

sentence'.shoufldfif~not.._'l'v.il§i.ate trial unless it

occasion'si«._4xfai.lure of_"3'u:stice -- Criminal P.C.,

S,..'~3_§37.s..  '
 ' 'T'ho'ugA_h it ismdesirable that Magistrates
 "'shot:lt:'v.,_ob.ey__th..e express provisions of the law,

"ye't*thé 7OfjmVi'ssion to write a judgment before
pEonoiJ:ncii1"g a sentence should not necessarily
 xxiitiateuthe trial, unless such omission has in

  occasioned a failure ofjustice: 14 All. 242
'piano 27 Mad. 237, not Fo|l.; 23 Ca|.SO2, Re|.on.

tie?



9

(8) Criminal P.C., s 367 ---- Omission to
sign judgment is mere irregularity curabie by
Criminal P.C., S.537. _
Where a Magistrate prepares a judgment  
but does not sign it, such omission to sign th:e....'V   V

judgment amounts to a mere irregularity

H

on. g _ V

11. Appiying the principleslaid".do'wn 
mentioned ruling, in my view, in  if theerldier sheet has
not been signed, it is  the
procedural law. Such omAiss_i:o_n,  in faiiure of

justice. Furtl'1ve.o,,'"jthi.s:i¥;:p'bjecti--o'n'h'as~--n§ot been raised by the
accused in the"Trial:C'e'urt.'i»,,l%Cir:"th_'e.ﬁrst time, in this Court this

objection haslllbehen Vrla-¥__sed,s 'Therefore, the contention of the

1..-iea_rnec!':"SeniV'or__CouAnse.3_.___t.hat the order sheet has not been

signed'a-vnd*vt<hereio'i'e, the proceedings have to be quashed has

 no foi":e'and 't?ii:*__ same cannot be accepted.

  z'vTlhe next contention urged by learned Senior

 'Coéunse.|..is that cognizance taken by learned magistrate is

  application of mind and therefore it is bad in law.

\ E' 

curable by 53.537: A.I.R. 19:5_A.ll.,,4299,"R'ei.;'t';g.V  



10 A
:3. In this regard, the impugned order reads as

undeh

"Heard the learned Counsel for the
complainant. Perused the orioinalcomplaint 
documents produced alongwith the complaint V' V
the sworn statement of the complainant._.~ 
basis of the material available  r_ecord_. 
satisfied that the compiainant a. 
primafacie case for an offe'nc'e~.,punishabie_  £38. 
of the N I Act, Hence, I  to'-pass the
following:        

       
Registera crim,in'ai» case' a_gains_t  accused

in Registeri__':No;1}II_, for arfoffdence"'p*u--riishable u/s

138 ivotthe'reliljevgotialblel'i.Vn'struti;ié'nlts Act, 1881, and
issue'sii'n%1rho,hsV:'t-o%  by RPAD for the
aforesaid' "offeh_ceV.:  and postage paid.
Rettirfiable by V181/12'}'O'.§." l .

3.,4;-- "ca,.re_ful perusal of impugned order, it is cfear

 "that tllelwleamediﬂlzagistrate has perused the original complaint

 dOCUii3§i'lltS produced alongwith the complaint and also

 '--s\}vo_Arn_'st'atement and on the basis 'of the materials available

 he was satisfied that there was prima facie case

V"Vi*»»..against the petitéonehaccused. The learned Magistrate has

i\,/



ii

focused his attention to the averment made in the complaint.
Therefore, it is difficult to say that the iearned Magistrate has

not applied his mind. Therefore, the contention raised byrthe

learned Senior Counsel that the cognizance taken..~i~s.

law has no force.

15. The last contention urged learried 

Counsel for petitioner is that c:he'q-uie .has" been
presented within 6 monthsfrom th_euidate.._of h.ari«din"g_o5ver the
cheque to the cornpiainant}  laisfo' j.inViVt'eol'iattention of this

Court to Section 138*'{a_) of-lvegioitiabiAe:'s.I_ns.t'rurii»*ént Act.

16.  x_HCVoiinsei for the respondent
has relied   case of Ashok Yeshwant

Badave 5'./5 LASurenCdra'v"madhavrao Nighojakar reported in

CSECC  wherein the Ho_n'ble Supreme Court has

 " e
held :. 

l._f'Si>c~'nﬁonths' period has to be 'calculated for
purposes of proviso (a) from the date mentioned
 x_on~._the face of cheque and not from any eariier
C7-Zdafe when drawer actuaiiy gaue cheque to

-Tldrawee."  

\y'



Further, Section 118(b) of the Negotiable Instruments

Act as to date -- that every negotiable instrument bearicngea

date was made or drawn on such date. Six months..~hajs» be" 

calcuiated from the date mentionediin the cheque_,':"'71}heir.efoi'e} 

it is difficult to accept the contentiorg"iofl:t'neV 'iea-r'n~ed'--$e:nio_r_ 

Counsel that the cheque has not beenhp-ztesenteciljwithlinlac if

period of six months from the date""e.n"iwhich"it_is'id'r=avi{n. 

17. There is no  can be applied
to quash the Dr0C§TEd_\in9S;'.""Eail'l'C3%'?'§ﬁlh'ae:..AV'.ifherefore to be
considered on   decision has to
be taken vto__.q_u"a.shiit;he_'--  not. The learned
Magistrate:7.._has'foclusednnis"=al:'t:en'tion to the averments made

in the compia_int_  cognizance of the offence.

4.Ayermer_it if made V'in._.V:tVhe complaint constitutes the offence

 (iq;i.pii,x4i.ng_the principle laid down in the decisions

cited.s'u.pira"i::e_i._.__  SCC 726 and also not signing of the

 'order sheet-':be'ing an curable irreguiarity} I am of the opinion

'it+i.s not rarest of rare case where this Court can exercise

 .i.n_.hérent°'power to quash the proceedings.

. :3 ,2"
"\c.»»"



18. in that View of the matter, I pass the foiiowingz

ORDER
This Criminal Petition is dismissed.
we 9733 d .'€Qg;i2«« ' gm' £"»~'1 *bgn/..
Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

M/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010

Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy

Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy
