Karnataka High Court
M/S.Vasanth Colour Laboratories Ltd vs M/S.Madura Garments on 11 December, 2012
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R. Kumaraswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAMY
CRL.R.P. NO.1168 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASANTH COLOUR
LABORATORIES LTD.,
110, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD
ANGALORE 560 027
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI B RANGAVASANTH
2. SRI B. RANGAVASATH
S/O SRI B S RANGA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S VASANTH COLOUR
LABORATORIES LTD.,
110, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH
ROAD, BANGALORE 560 027 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH ADVOCATE FOR
DUA ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
AND:
M/S MADURA GARMENTS
(A DIVISION OF INDIAN RAYON
AND INDUSTRIES LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
2
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT VAREVAL 362 266 IN THE STATE
OF GUJARAT), AND AT NO. 110,
4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE 560 095
REPRESENTED HEREIN
BY ITS MANAGER
SRI K MANSOOR AHMED ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR
KING & PATRIDGE, ADVOCATES)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1)
R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
26.5.10 PASSSED BY THE P.O. FTC-II, BANGALORE IN
CRL.A.879/08 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED
22.10.08 PASSED BY THE XV ACMM., BANGALORE
CITY IN C.C.NO.348/04 AND ORDER THAT THE
PETITONERS BE ACQUITTED IN THE SAID CRL.R.P.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
3
2. The accused No.2 is the Managing Director of the first accused company i.e. M/s. Vasanth Colour Laboratories Ltd. The accuse No.2 had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant company for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs dated 20.03.2003 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Kasturba Road Branch, Bangalore. Thereafter, the complainant company presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker i.e. HDFC Bank Ltd., Kasturba Road Branch, Bangalore and it was dishonoured with an endorsement "PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER". Thereafter, the complainant company issued a legal notice dated 29.09.2003 through its Counsel by RPAD and UCP calling upon the accused to pay the amount stated in cheque. Inspite of receipt of the notice, the accused failed to pay the amount stated in the cheque. Hence, the complainant company constrained to file the complaint.
3. The complainant company in order to prove its case, has got examined its Power of Attorney holder 4 Sri.S.A.Mansoor Ahamed, before the Court as P.W.1 and got marked as Exs.P.1 to P.22 documents. Statement of the accused No.2 came to be recorded on 07.03.2007. Thereafter accused No.2 himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked as Exs.D.1 to D.24 documents on behalf of the defence.
4. The Trial Court has observed that the Ex.P.8 i.e. letter dated 06.03.2003, written by the accused No.2 to the complainant company discloses that Ex.P.7 cheque was issued towards partial discharge of the security deposit refundable to the complainant pending reconciliation of accounts. Along with Ex.P.7, the accused had issued Ex.P.8 letter stating that Ex.P.7 was issued to the complainant company towards security deposit refundable subject to the final reconciliation of the accounts from both sides. Therefore, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the complainant company has established that the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable 5 Instruments Act. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the accused No.2 has sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,20,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only). Out of the recovered fine amount, an amount of Rs.5,18,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Only) shall be paid to the complainant company as compensation and the balance amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) shall go to the State.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred the Criminal Appeal No.879/2008. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the Trial Court.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred this revision petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to pay Rs.5,20,000/- (Rupees Five 6 Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) minus the amount already deposited in the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Therefore, the suitable order may be passed.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is agreed to receive the fine amount which will be deposited by the accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the suitable order may be passed. Since he is agreed to receive the amount, it amounts to compromise. Therefore, it will have the effect of Section 320 Clause 8 read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
9. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that he will pay the fine amount of Rs.5,20,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only), it is made clear that the fine amount deposited in the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court shall be adjusted towards Rs.5,20,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only). If the fine is realized, 7 Rs.5,18,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Only) shall be paid to the complainant company and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the State.
10. The observations made herein in the Criminal Court shall not influence the Trial Court while disposing of the civil cases.
With these observations, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE LB