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 OP KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE C R KUMARASWAMV=§fjQ*-- CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4905/2010 R" 'R BETWEEN: 1 M/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERE UNDER COMPANIES ACT, " ' . HAVING ITS REGISTERED OEPI'C,E"AT No.28, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE 42 . " REP. BY ITS DIRECTOPIS -A " MR. TPHANI MAHESH _ A. MR. A.M.SHARATH CHAND_RAj:._* 2 SRIT*PHA'NI'MAHE:SH _ ' S/O SR1 TC AS:+INAvRTII.,rIA,.RAvAN AGED";AB'OuT 45 YEAR'S., , DIRCTOR ' _ _ M/S DUO PROAPERTIES (P)-~RLTD., NO..28_. LILSOOR' ROAD-,. BAIIGALORE 42;-A _____ . MR M~.,SHARATH CHANDRA "3/O--A C,M'LiNI_VENKATE GOWDA ~_A'C5_ED 'A«P;_O.L__.n'~ ,49 YEARS, DIRCTOR ' ~ * M"/'S DIJO PROPERTIES (P) I.TD., NO.2~8,LiLSOOR ROAD, ' .. BANGALORE 42. PETITIONERS (BY'..S'RI...'A"RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S. A K S " _AS=SO'CIATES, ADVOCATES) 5'? ,/"'5 gig' R) AND: MR P. DAYANANDA PAI S/0 LATE P NARASIMHA PAI AGES ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.1€a/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 52. .RE'SPQAIb:NT: (BY M/S. s MAHESH & COMPANY, ADVOCATE§_l "J CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF cR.'P.._C*~EsY THE Am/_OlCAT'Ef'FOVR"THE " A PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIs'=._HTON'BLE'~.COuRT 'MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE E.NTzvRE'wV.,_, PROCEEDIHNGS IN C.C.NO.27093/O9 PENDING'"O,_N THE Ci"-"-ILE, "OF THE xv ACMM, BANGALORE. THIS CRL.P Is.(jf,OvM1Nc;§"O_:r&l' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE ' 'V ' This fileollvunder Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners praying to quash thg.entire'"proceedin'gsO'in C.C. No. 27093/2009 pending "the file' o»f"'X\/" A,dd|.CVi§i'l5?i, Bangalore. H 'r{ajye',1=Vneard learned Counsel for the petitioners aswell as l,earned Counsel for the respondent. The primary facts of the case is as under: __..One Mr.P Dayananda Pai has presented a complaint :'E:""o~e~Vr"ore the XV Acldl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 52;; 3 The accused has issued a cheque bearing No. 197991 dated 26.02.2009, drawn on The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., M.G.Road Branch, M.G.Road, Bangaiore, for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Only). The said cheque was presented for encashment and the san_ée_f-.._was dishonoured on the ground of "insufficient . legal notice was issued on 29.08.20Q9._ Vleygali notice, the accused faiied to pay the almount3and._th'erel5y:"tt.hey_i have alleged to have committed_a'n__offe'nce pun€sha§.bl.eHurider -. * Sections 138 and 141 of NegotiablelinistrumentsAct,V1881. 4. It is the contenti-ognlorl Naik, learned Senior Coiunsei a.ope-'garjigingglioiniibehalf of the petitioners that the order sheet "dated has not been signed by the _..iearned«.§iy:.'Adidi. CiViF~*E.;::VVv§angaiore. He further submits that A"cogn:Vi'z--a_nce' by the learned Magistrate is without appii-ca*tilon" The cheque has not been presented within nV1.onths from the date of handing over of the cheque colriplainant. The attention of this Court was invited to -.S'ecAt*i§oln'ii38(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. § 5! 'b' 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies on the ruling in the case of Surendra Sfngh and Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 SC 194, wherei__n at para 14 of the said ruling reads as under: it it "14. As soon as the judgment is del£'.$iere~d:;: .. that becomes the operative prono.uncerrf:e'nt"'oifthle Court. The law then provides:=.for:-thleiv which it is to be authenticated a'n.d"'madegc"ertaEn. " l' The rules regarding this d.iffe.r but form the essence of the m.atter'~»and if'-th_ere7 is irregularity in carry}-Eng'_then}.l'oLi_t»,:it'.iis curable. Thus, if a judgment hap-plensnot and is inadvertgentiiy a(jtec_l'_:'ori.4_laln_d_ executed, the proc'de'edVi'ri*g.s._V would be valid because it can be shown to have been i/'algigdlity del'i\,'Vei=etl",.»s.iiiiouldlstand good despite déeiectgs div.-. _ the rriode of its subsequent 'a.u:th:ent:cation.""' """ ._i-file' on another ruling in the case of Ashok YeshiAi'antv___v'Baciaive Vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar arioihe} reported in (2001) 3 scc 225, in Head Notes amides,' it is held that: "A. Six months' "period has to be calculated for purpose of proviso (a) from the (;W".'ii 5 date mentioned on the face of cheque and not from any earlier date when drawer actuaiiy gave cheque to drawee -- High Court rightiy dismissed appeiiant--drawer's appeal against issue of process against him -~ Words and ¥3hrases - "post dated cheque". B. Post dated cheque, remains exchange tiii the date written on the fa.ce...o"f.it"~«-.{ on that date it becomes a cheque. And it is further held?th_at: i "For prosecuting a p_er'so_h*..for .arh_o'ffen7ce under Section 138 'the 5_Neg.oi'ti4a_b.l_e"«Instruments Act it is inevitable that theichegue._q:isiAA.p.re'sented to the 'pan_k.erhWit.h_ivfi.a 'p_ei=i,,o_d. of six months from the date on '*w%hichV_.it:.:is'dra'w.n"or within the period of its_validii"ty 'whiche~~{e'r~.--"iis earlier. When a post daltedi'~cheque"--isVV__i{i(rgi.tten or drawn, it is only a biii e>€cha_n"g.e and so long the same remains a bill __ot'exjch_aiiVgje_,:'_i:ne provisions of Section 138 are not .' eaipiplicabieto the said instrument. The post dated chezque "becomes a cheque within the meaning of A. ,S__ecti'o'n 138 of the Act on the date which is it "-w_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." gig; 6. The learned counsel for respondent relies on Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -~ Presurre,pté»ons as to negotiable instruments sub clause (b) reads (b) as to date -- that every negotlab:l~Ae:' _ instrument bearing a date was ,m"ad'e'o_r1.drawn"on,_"5' such date." 7. It is the contention learned Se.-nior':,Counsel that since the ordersheetdated not signed, the proceedings has to be quash_ed..._ ti 8. Secti'o'iw,,__4:S,5';'.'of ;'C.r.Pl."C§.",_reVads as follows: ~.sVentence5' when reversible by reason. of"e,rr.or,.omission or irregularity. (3;'},._,4 diS,ubject.',to»the provisions hereinbefore co4rjtain,ed,Vn'o..,_V_fi'n'ding, sentence or -order passed ,b"yk'ai..,"iCoi:.rt ofdconfipetent jurisdiction shall be L' areversedi 'altered by a Court of appeal, H revision on account of any error, or'niss.i.6n~iior irregularitv in the complaint, Asumrnons, warrant, proclamation, order, ,judgment or other proceedings before or during or in any inquiry or other proceedings under " ~*Vthis Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion gr'; "-.9' of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) In determining whether any omission or irregularity in any proceeding"~«:i:ndear.xh' he this Code, or any error, or irreg.t_ilarit':yVhhihneanyh' sanction for the prosecution has :_-ioccasi.o'nred' a$ failure of Justice, the Court_shaIl'--.ha*-./e rega1rdv"to _ the fact whether the objec'ti._o'r1.,could=.an*dCé;ho'i.i|Vd"' C have been raised at an ,._ea:r'iier~V.._,staghe"in Vthe proceedings." 9. In the~'caseI'of M: Abraham and Others in "'Goenka Vs Padam Sambhav:.:Jai_n_A__in {Cr/.A.No.849/2002, Han' Narain Nigairi . Vs» Bihar and Others in cr/.A.Ng_;a4a/2o02,report-ed in (2002) 6 sec 670 at para 21 reads asVundeA"r--:, «A a grave illegality is committed, the. su_perio'r courts should not interfere. They shouicifallow the Court which is seized of the it matter to go on with it. {here is always an "'-a;'jp'e|late Court to correct the errors. One should 2 ....i{eep in mind the principle behind Section 465 Cr.P.C. Any and every irregularity or infraction 3 it' i" MW of a procedurai provision cannot constitute a ground for interference by a superior Courtf*--._ uniess such irregularity or infraction has causejd'--V.f"'4.V."', irreparabie prejudice to the party and requi_res."to"V.'j"-iof *' be correct at that stage tends to defeat ._ of justice instead of servingjthose shouid not be that a man with "eno'ug'h niealnsngyis " abie to keep the Saw at bay, That i)voVuid'V:'r'ne-an, the failure of the very systerfi..f'_"i' _ 2 I V 10. In the decisiVonT'o_f "Mc§han'2ed:"Hayat Mulla Vs Emperor reported-in AIR""1'»9'30Vl,*/.7, the Hon'bie High Court of i and 367 - Omisision'1to'._--vVwri3te 'j.uCig_r_nent before passing sente'r~t.ce«. shou2d'j_ijV~.no't.:Tv«irti"ate triai unless it occasions._Vfa~iiure_ tofu justice -- Criminai P.C., ' A: V. *--ifhoViur_i.h it desirabie that Magistrates V express provisions of the iaw, "y.e'ti'the '.ojrjni5ssion to write ajudgment before pronouincingg a sentence shouici not necessariiy nxrigtiateuthe triai, uniess such omission has in occasioned a faiiure ofjustice: 14 AH. 242 "and 27 Mad. 237, not Foii.; 23 Cai.502, Rehon. 9 (B) Criminal P.C., S 367 -- Omission to sign judgment is mere irregularity curable by Criminal P.C., S537. _ Where a Magistrate prepares a judgment but does not sign it, such omission to sign judgment amounts to a mere irregularity,-.s::"iu" curable by s.537: A.I.R. 1925_.All_.' 299,""'Re_i;V..'V""~ * If on. 11. Applying the principles laéi'd_ld-own aipolvei', mentioned ruling, in my view, in'"ca_se_._if the. c§'rd'er sheet has not been signed, it iscu.'rab.|e"-«irregularity under the procedural law. Such omission r'iot"iéaVuse in failure of justice. Fuirti1e:r;:g'th:is-: "objectionh'as":not been raised by the accused i{ii;hie.lgTr:ei'tci::irti%rt.ii'_:'i::ir"the first time, in this Court this objection has"*beenV:r'aise_d;'..--il;herefore, the contention of the _»"i~eaArnecl5¥Se_nio..r Cou'nse--!~that the order sheet has not been .s--igri.ed the proceedings have to be quashed has ' no force and 'tvhjeéame cannot be accepted. 12.~~_'d':Fhe next contention urged by learned Senior is that cognizance taken by learned magistrate is ..i."i(iiith@:iut application r mind and therefore it is bad in law. e x,» 13. In this regard, the impugned order reads as under: "Heard the learned Counsel complainant. Perused the original complVai'ri~t:.a'nfd. in documents produced alongwithvth'e»--com~plaint" the sworn statement of the con'°,p|a,i_nant.'~._O'n_:the basis of the material avai.lab_le on._re'cord.;'"3l_Aam satisfied that the complain'anti.has rnad'e primafacie case for an offenl<:ei.ij_:un'ishable'Au/-3 of the N I Act, l-ilei'~.Ee,.,1A--t,p:o:cé'e.tj'i~pass the following: _ Regist'e.r_a.,'.crViml:nal_;'case'_against the accused in Regi_ste'~r_l5il--oifi.;I;_IVfo_r= punishable u/s 138 't§.5e.gotllliagblejvjlrlstruments Act, 1881, and issuelsulmmons'to.lV_the:'accused by RPAD for the aforesaids.._,-offelnce*._ and postage paid. Retfu rnsable by. 1821 2/09. " perusal of impugned order, it is clear vi°*"that thiellearnediiMagistrate has perused the original complaint _._,'.j'i;ja4n__d-r»docurne_n:ts produced alongwith the complaint and also swor,n'~s_ta5:ement and on the basis of the materials available _re__rford, he was satisfied that there was prima facie case V"«:J'*a,gainst the petitioner-accused. The learned Magistrate has . _/' .é?',~" focused his attention to the averrnent made in the complaint. Therefore, it is difficult to say that the learned Magistra»te~,has not applied his mind. Therefore, the contention learned Senior Counsel that the cognizance K V' law has no force. 15. The East contention"l;1_rged the_Iearned...,Senior Counsel for petitioner is that V_thuev.._cia_eque' not been presented within 6 months"--i:rQ.m'~.thig' :da'te':o:flhanding over the cheque to the com_pia_inan=t';' al'sos._irn}i.te.dirattention of this Court to Section ofi:.'\_lAe-g.otiablfe ment Act. 16. 'ti1i:sv_Vret§iavrd;':'i'e.arned_wCVounsel for the respondent has reliedVV"'oVVn'--the case of Ashok Yeshwant Badaveu'./s_ Surehdra rriadhavrao Nighojakar reported in vliherein the l-ion'i:>le Supreme Court has rnonths' period has to be calculated for A pur"p.o_ses of proviso (a) from the date mentioned jo':*'i_. the face of cheque and not from any earlier 'date when drawer actually gave cheque to C drawee." §;;,~>w,«' -W» 18. In that view of the matter, I pass the foiiowing: ORDER
This Criminal Petition is dismissed.