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 OE NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HO|\£'BLE MRJUSTICE C R :<uMARASwAM\_r~._jj-{_*~._
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4904/2010'__--§'_:m""
BETWEEN:
1 M/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. 1
A COMPANY REGISTERE UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, , '
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OI?'r~_'IGE AT No.28, ' ._
ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE 4'2_
REP. BY ITS DIRECTORS
MR. T.PHANI MAHESPP , ~
MR. A.M.SHARATH CHANj,DRA_. R. "
2 sRIVT"P'HAN,Ii:MAH:ESH'=,f-
5/ OISRI. T C A>$H.WAR*I*H N-A_RAV'AN
AGED_ABQU'T ,45~.YEA'RS, '
DIRCTOR . 2
M/S DUOEPROPERTIES (W LTD.,
NG;28_, ULSOOR-ROAD,
BANGALORE 42; .....
"MR A, M,.~s,.HARATH CHANDRA
" _s/'O AC NIJN_I\gt.ENI<ATE GOVVDA
. A.GED'A.5O_uT'49 YEARS,
'DIRCTQREI *
M/S EIUOVPROPERTIES (P) LTD.,
NO;~28,i.ULSOOR ROAD,
' I BANGALORE 42. PETITIONERS
"'(ASY.,'s--RI.L'4 RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR W5. A K S
___'ASSQCIATES, ADVOCATES)
3?'.
Ex.)
AND :
MR P. DAYANANDA PAI
S/O LATE P NARASIMHA PAE
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
E\lO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA
COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE 52:. REsPO.rri'.OENT.1'g;'---- A.
(BY M/S. S MAHESH & COMPANY, ADVOCAIES)
CRL.P FILED U/S482 OF CR.P.C BKTH-EA1DV'OCATE FO'R.__Tis¢;EA
PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HoN'E.i__E cOO.R'r.MAy{_"~i3Ew._
PLEASED TO QUASH THE EAiTIRE._ "r>ROc,EEi;>i:,:xiGs; IN
C.C.NO.27090/09 PENDENG ON T--H_E'-,_FILE"O__F'TH'E '><\}""'ACMM, '
BANGALORE. _ . A_ .5
THIS CRLP IS COMING ON FER ADMISSION 'T:~i.is»'oAv, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWIN{5i"~._ " .
This CrirA_téi'rTavlVwPetitiO:n'~«.'VVi.sfiled under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. by the"learned'-A:.Cn:d'n.se<l"for the petitioners praying to
quash the-V entire pvrocele-dings in C.C. No. 27090/2009 pending
:'Vj._on"th_e"i1'ile Bangalore.
Viihjaiievwheard learned Counsel for the petitioners
as well as. learned Counsel for the respondent.
The primary facts of the case is as under:
One EVIr.P Dayananda Pai has presented a complaint
"hefore the XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
iii
/..»
C131
The accused has issued a cheque bearing No. 197977 dated
26.03.2009, drawn on The Dhanalakshmi Bank ___Ltd.,
M.G.Road Branch, M.G.Road, Bangalore, for a
Rs.2,00,00,000/~ (Rupees Two Crore Only). Thesaid::ch7e'qfu{'e~.T' ~
was presented for encashment __and__ theM"s*a.'rVne"',:"was_i'
dishonou red on the ground of "insuffic'i:ent,'_'fu~ndst".
legal notice was issued on 29§:f_)_V'8~~...2O0€'9A."~ * L'
notice, the accused failed to pay tgh_eViamount an'd.t,her,eby they
have alleged to have comi*r'a--it'ted'tan{--,o.ffe'nce:'punishable under
Sections 138 and 14: of Ne"g'o'tia'b|e'I,n.s_t'rume'nts Act, 1881.
Senior Couznsei'apVpea'r.iin'g,,go'n:beh'alf of the petitioners that the
order sheetidatedvv has not been signed by the
4.l,earned,,.§€Addi. CIVl'iv'lv,..V:vvlv':_5an:{;a|ore. He further submits that
Iicoginijzancevliiby the learned Magistrate is without
The cheque has not been presented
vi/within from the date of handing over of the cheque
Vcompllllainant. The attention of this Court was invited to
:t38(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
, /
isri,/)
4
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies on the
ruling in the case of Surendra Singh and Others Vs State of
Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 sc .294, wherein at
para 14 of the said ruling reads as under: it at at
"14. As soon as the judgment is
that becomes the operative pro:io"url'cema.ent«of':'th_e:
Court. The law then provides {for
which it is to be authenticated and-,_made=certainV.m
The rules regarding this but atiteayidio 'toot
form the essence of.._the ,ni1a'ct_je'r and ifaéti'iere'a4is
irregularity in carryingg--them.aAi.ou'ttf'it,aV:iscurable.
Thus, if a judgment and
is inadvertentlyh' acted; on""a:nd"'-executed, the
proceaedings} would be valid
because the can be shown to have
been \a/alidityv d'eli.§)ered';_.»i.wou|d stand good despite
deiectgs iri» "athie amaode of its subsequent
aaiuthentic-ation."i" """
I on another ruling in the case of Ashok
nVaaV'{eshwa--nt mam Vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar
aiixothaér reported in (200.2) 3 scc 726, in Head Notes
Bgjit is held that:
"A. Six months' period has to be
calculated for purpose of proviso (a) from the
X,
if
date mentioned on the face of cheque and not
from any eariler date when drawer actuaiiy gave'.-2,
cheque to drawee -- High Court rightly dismissed.c:'f..'_i'*-V
appellant-d rawer's appeal against issue of iI>F_Cl'_"C'"es«s'_'v-V--..i:_': -1- A
against him -- Words and Phrases -- "po.5_t":"d_Cf,tvejjq..
cheque".
8. Post dated cheque, :r'em"a_ins a.g'.t.;i.iI:'vo}'
exchange till the date writtenkon th"e._fac.e:'o_:f
on that date It becomes a che_c[u.e.
And It IS furthefhieid tahgattgai it A
"For pvrcnsecutirgig ;'V.pers'o».h_u._fo'r"zan offence
under Section of:.the..zNe.go:tivabie Instruments
Act it is inevi't_at}ie t'r;atcth]e..c'h'equ:e is presented to
the banke_riA ofjsix months from the
date on which within the period of
its validViVty_V%hwhich_eVer'is eariier. When a post
dattddv cheque or drawn, it is oniy a biii
ioi"exc'hange_.and so long the same remains a biii
provisions of Section 138 are not
appaiicabie"cjtof'the said instrument. The post dated
che'que':bec'omes a cheque within the meaning of
ASectIon..:'138 of the Act on the date which is
w_ritten thereon and the 6 months' period has to
_ he reckoned for the purposes of proviso (a) to
"Section 138 of the Act from the said date."
6
6. The learned counsel for respondent relies on
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Presumptions
as to negotiable instruments sub clause (b) reads as...un_cle'i=§',;'
(b) as to date - that every n'ego't~i.ab!fe'~
instrument bearing a date was ma'de. or"dra:wjn'-on:
such date."
7. It is the contention of""tb:e'»learnedV_ Se-riiorK:Counse|
that since the ordersheet dated notsigned, the
proceedings has to be quashed-,_
8. Sec__t.io§'n" tire: Cr. P-.'CQf,' readsfllas follows:
v'_T<i_,6S';._F-'li'i1<::i.i,r:_i_g_ .sen't'etl,C..e.»~§when reversible
by reaso_n. of'erro_r,.orni_ss.i.on or irregularity.
provisions hereinbefore
contained, ln'c..,_Vfi'nding, sentence or order passed
rcourt oficolmpetent jurisdiction shall be
' 'altered by .a' Court of appeal,
H revision on account of any error,
ori~;..issi._;ji*i-for irregularity in the complaint,
Asummons, warrant, proclamation, order,
A A,iuld'g.ment or other proceedings before or during
Actrlilal or in any inquiry or other proceedings under
" -this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any
sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion
{K/,
of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been
occasioned thereby.
(2) In determining whether any err_or,.,:'j'«..i_i"'--,
omission or irregularity in any proceeding r.-
this Code, or any error, or irregularityV'i"n.._any .4
sanction for the prosecution I-h'a's"~«occ'asio.nje'd._a: C"
failure of justice, the Court shall liave riegard to
the fact whether the ObjeiC'l'§_.CJfT could and."'sh;0u_,l_Vd
have been raised at an"l"eailier sta.ge>.i?n the
proceedings."
9. In the case of ';-iiiflibraham and
Others in mire/<,% Coenka Vs Padam
Sambha v Jain" in; Cr/.A.No.84 9/2002, Han'
Narain Bihar and Others in
Cr/.A.No,848/2t?02.V_repovr'ted in (2002) 5 scc 570 at para
C21 reads U 1':-d:e"'r,:_
a grave iiiegality is committed,
Athe s._uper§ior courts should not interfere. They
_ shouldi-allow the Court which is seized of the
matter to go on with it. There is always an
"fwaipipellate Court to correct the errors. One should
--ékeep in mind the principle behind Section 465
Cr.P.C. Any and every irregularity or infraction
z"">
of a procedural provision cannot constitute a
ground for interference by a superior Court.--._
unless such irregularity or infraction has cause'dV.c:"'«.._l"'-V
irreparable prejudice to the party and require's"to.,"~;..,:_5
be correct at that stage tends to defeat _the"'end:sf in
of justice instead of serving'--t'h'ose
should not be that a man with "enc§ug~l'i nfi'ea'l1s' is
able to keep the law at bay," That 'vwou|d'"r'nj_ea4n.V .
the failure of the very systern..VVV''''l» ' V
10. in the decision_"'jg«--of --'l\4c}harned"'~Hayat Mulla l/s
Emperor reportedgfn AI}? the Hon'b|e
High Court of RaVn.goo1:ti'
"(Ajs._ct:'.::1lnlai_gg«s;5';ic; 366 and 367 --
Omistfsioni1to'._gwrrte judg__rnent before passing
senteEr*..ce«-- should'j_ijV~.no't.:TVi.t»i'ate trial unless it
occasions._Vfaiiure__ of justice ~-- Criminal P.C.,
i
J V' **ifha"u~g.h it ismdesirabie that Magistrates
'"shou|:d«..ob4e'yt.:t"r3.e express provisions of the law,
"y.etl'theu7ojmVisVsIon to write a judgment before
plronouincingg a sentence should not necessarily
ggvitiatedthe trial, unless such omission has in
occasioned a failure ofjustice: 14 All. 242
"band 27 Mad. 237, not Foll.; -23 Ca|.502, Re|.on.
as
-- /
§'f,/
9
(B) Criminal P.C., S 367 -- Omission to
sign judgment is mere irregularity curable by
Criminal P.C., 8.537. _
Where a Magistrate prepares a judgment
but does not sign it, such omission to sign
judgment amounts to a mere irregularity,~.:V"':u
It
on.
curable by 5.537: A.I.R. 192s,,Ai,i_,, 29e9',""Re'i_.V
11. Applying the princiiaies |ai'd._d'own sgiriiii ailpouvei',
mentioned ruiing, in my view, in""case,_if theorcier sheet has
not been signed, it is'cu.ra'bEe"--«i_rr,egi,i|arity under the
procedural law. Such omi_ss'io,n n'ot"<::a;Vuse in failure of
justice. Fulrt'l1e.r,-jthiiisfii:'object-iori'h"as"not been raised by the
accused in"*the,_Trial"Co't!rt»...V_:Fco:r"the first time, in this Court this
objection hasiheen,Vrais'ed;*..-Therefore, the contention of the
5"ie.a'rne.d3<Senio.r CoAu'nsveE«-«"that the order sheet has not been
anc{'..,t'he'r'ei:"fo're, the proceedings have to be quashed has
no forcei«and.th';e..same cannot be accepted.
12.'~]The next contention urged by learned Senior
that cognizance taken by Eearned magistrate is
--yiiithout appiication of mind and therefore it is bad in law.
5? / "
'(Jr
13.
under:
In this regard, the impugned order reads as
"Heard the learned Counsel
complainant. Perused the original comp|aint_:"andV,:
documents produced alongwith the.complai'n'tfand"~
the sworn statement of the con1p|a,in,arit'f,.O,n"theta:Q,_.sf
basis of the material available on record.,,.-".t.I'A'an"1
satisfied that the complairi-ant.,bhasV. mad.ej'v_ou':Wa"'
primafacie case for an offen_c.eV:,'£3vunishableAu./s 2138
of the N I Act, Hence,' iE_ p;rolcee'd,,A"'t~o_} pass the
following: "T ll'
Re:.gi'st.e__r C--_i'ii'ii:i:1_7_,<_"::ll case agai the accused
in Regipsteru '::i\iVt13;,1VIIV" ~ o_ff:en't:ew punishable u/s
138:._;of Act, 1881, and
issue'.,sumnions.".to by RPAD for the
aforesalidp" o,ffVen_ce.'_ " £5}: and postage paid.
Retui'nab|e sbyslppia/1:2./o9."
perusal of impugned order, it is clear
Fhatths All/lagistrate has perused the original complaint
docum__Aents produced alongwith the complaint and also
it "'s:iAior'n.'s«tatement and on the basis of the materials available
~on...record, he was satisfied that there was prima facie case
'against the petitioner--act:used. The learned Magistrate has
'surf
focused his attention to the averment made in the complaint.
Therefore, it is difficult to say that the learned Magistra~te".has
not applied his mind. Therefore, the contention rai.sed_;
learned Senior Counsel that the cognizance ta_l§e'n. i's.A_:ba_d% in»:
law has no force.
15. The last contention"tJ_Vr"§ed the_learne'd--»».Sénior = C'
Counsel for petitioner is thatAc.thxea.cheLque' "h-as not been
presented within 6 months""fro--m"--the'daltetloffihanding over the
cheque to the com_pia_inantC "attention of this
Court to Section' 3_8ffl:(:.a;) of:.:i\l_'eg.otia"blf'e Instrument Act.
16. 'f'l'I'§:'l.§'V..F€f9é<llVVF'€§;--:l|'eVarned.wColunsel for the respondent
has reiied"'on"the' -case of Ashok Yeshwant
Badaveel,/sap Surehdra' n5-adhavrao Nighojakar reported in
5726 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
v--.."'S'§v>t"'months' period has to be calculated for
AA Tpurpocsies of proviso (a) from the date mentioned
the face of cheque and not from any earlier
date when drawer actually gave cheque to
'C drawee."
$1/N
3?,
Further, Section 118(b) of the Negotiable Instruments
Act as to date n that every negotiable instrument bearing a
date was made or drawn on such date. Six months hasjfo_be
calculated from the date mentioned in the cheque.
it is difficult to accept the contention of the £.ve..'a"'!"'l-.':I:.e('j::".SvVCé.'|'kl".i(jI":" V'
Counsel that the cheque has not beelnit'pres'ented.:_"r:_iVt.h'i'n"ha7
period of six months from the date on is.o.'ifairvn'; it .
17. There is no precise prVi'tnVciplesvhth'at can
to quash the proceedingsjt'~~..Each'.'case;lha.5. thefgéfofie to be
considered on its own meritgand'tnlereaftlei\é.',j'?§r._decision has to
be taken to quastmthe aroceaeidinigie'alarmist. The learned
Magistrate1_ha*s'focus-edij'i:.i,s"l'a:tt'enti'on to the averments made
in the comp'ia_4int.v cognizance of the offence.
V4.Avermen{t'Vrr.-ade uth_e__.comp|aint constitutes the offence
AValleged».._ AA_vp«p£x,'ii:rig__'the principle laid down in the decisions
V cited»e'a--p*rel"i*.'e;;i ;gool1(3) scc 726 and alsolnot signing of the
order shleetisbeing an curable irregularity, I am of the opinion
"that it'iis_not rarest of rare case where this Court can exercise
i-nfner'entAlpower to quash the proceedings.
13
18. In that View of the matter, I pass the feiiowing:
O R D E R
This Criminaf Petition is dismissed.