Telangana High Court
M/S. Unitek Power Solutions India Ltd., vs The State Of Telangana on 10 June, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.R.C.No.624 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 22.03.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.312 of 2016, wherein the learned II-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment dated 31.03.2016 in C.C.No.288 of 2013 passed by the learned XIV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act').
2. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/accused, learned Counsel for the second respondent/complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. Perused the record.
3. The second respondent/complainant filed a private complaint, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the revision petitioners/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. It is stated in the complaint that A-1 is a company 2 represented by its Managing Director A-2, and A-3 and A-4 are the Directors of A-1 company. The complainant company is manufacturing various industrial, telecommunication, railways and automotive batteries etc. A-1 purchased various batteries and made payments promptly till September, 2011. A-1 company, represented by A-2 Managing Director, placed purchase order on 14.12.2011 for purchasing batteries mentioned in the purchase order. The complainant company supplied the same at the office of the client of the accused i.e., Leighton Welspun Contractors Pvt., Ltd., Dronagiri, Navi Mumbai at the instance of the accused. The complainant raised a tax invoice for the material supplied worth Rs.8,14,083/-. A-1 company issued another purchase order on 14.12.2011 for purchase of batteries mentioned and accordingly, the complainant supplied the batteries to Leighton Welspun Contractors Pvt., Ltd., the client of the accused. The complainant raised a tax invoice for Rs.1,10,41,947/- for the value of the batteries supplied. The total value of supply made by the complainant company is for Rs.1,18,56,030/-. After receiving the 3 batteries, the accused company paid technical consultation fee on installation of batteries.
4. It is further stated in the complaint that the amount covered by the above two invoices have to be paid within 45 days from the date of invoice. After expiry of 45 days period, the representative of the complainant company requested the accused to pay the sum of Rs.1,18,56,030/-. After repeated requests, the accused issued cheque bearing No.008660 dated 27.10.2012 drawn on Axis Bank, Aluva Branch for an amount of Rs.1,18,56,030/- in favour of the complainant company. When the complainant company presented the cheque for collection with its banker on 24.12.2012, the same was dishonoured and returned unpaid for the reason 'insufficient funds' vide cheque return memo dated 24.12.2012. Thereupon, the complainant company got issued a legal notice dated 17.01.2013 calling upon A-1 to A-4 to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The notice was served on A-1 company on 21.01.2013. A-2, A-3 and A-4 have not claimed the notices, as per the postal endorsement. The legal notices were also sent A-1 to A-4 to their 4 factory address and they were returned undelivered with an endorsement 'refused'.
5. It is further stated in the complaint that A-3 and A-4 are the directors of A-1 company and they are responsible for the management of business affairs of A-1 company as they are looking after purchase and financial affairs of A-1 company. A-2 signed and issued the above mentioned cheque in favour of the complainant within the full knowledge of A-3 and A-4, who were actively participating in the daily business affairs of A-1 company. Later, the complainant filed the present complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
6. During trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the complainant and Exs.P-1 to P-22 were marked, besides Exs.X-1 to X-4. D.Ws.1 & 2 were examined on behalf of the accused and Exs.D-1 & D-2 were marked, besides Exs.X-1 to X-4.
7. The trial Court, after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, convicted and sentenced 5 A-2 and A-3, representing the A-1 company, him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,55,02,000/- jointly and in default to undergo suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The trial court further ordered the accused to pay compensation of Rs.1,55,02,000/- (cheque amount of Rs.1,18,56,030/- plus interest @ 9% per annnum) to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.312 of 2016 before the II-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 22.03.2016 dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment dated 31.03.2016 passed by the trial court in C.C.No.288 of 2013. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present revision.
8. The trial court at page 9 of its judgment observed at para 14 that the complainant through the evidence of P.W.1, corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, proved that A-1 company placed purchase order with the complainant company under Exs.P-14 and P-15 to deliver the batteries to Lighton Welspun Contractors Pvt., Ltd., Navi Mumbai; that under invoices Exs.P-16 and P-17 in the 6 name of A-1 company batteries were delivered under Exs.P-19 to P-21 delivery challans to the above said company; that A-1 company, represented by A-2 issued Ex.P-2 cheque dated 27.10.2012 for Rs.1,18,56,030/- in favour of the complainant company towards the discharge of legally enforceable liability, being the cost of batteries supplied; and that A-2, being the Managing Director, A-3 and A-4 being the directors of A-1 company, have actively participated in the day-to-day business affairs of A-1 company and all of them were responsible for issuing Ex.P-2 cheque in favour of the complainant company.
9. Further, the trial court has elaborately and meticulously dealt all the documents, the legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act and held the complainant positively proved that Ex.P-2 cheque is supported by legally enforceable liability that is worth batteries supplied to A-1 company and that Ex.P-2 supported by consideration is in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to rebut the said presumptions. The second respondent has placed cogent and convincing evidence before the trial court that the accused issued cheque and when presented it was unpaid for 7 the reason 'insufficient funds' on 24.12.2012 and thereupon the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.P-4 dated 17.01.2013 calling upon A-1 to A-4 to pay the cheque amount within 15 days. The notice was served on A-1 company, whereas the notice sent to A-2 to A-4 to their office and residential address were returned unserved. The accused neither choose to pay cheque amount nor issued reply.
10. Apart from analyzing the judgment of the trial court, coming to the judgment of the appellate court, the appellate court has also elaborately dealt with all the contentions raised by learned counsel for the revision petitioners and confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial court.
11. Going by the judgments of the courts below and the entire material available on record, it is seen that both the courts below have rightly held that the second respondent/complainant has established the guilt of the revision petitioners/accused under Section 138 of the Act. The reasoning assigned by the courts below in support of its findings in favour of the second respondent/ 8 complainant and against the revision petitioners/accused, is fully justified and there is no perversity or illegality. The courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and materials and applied the legal aspects in proper perspective and in accordance with the settled legal position. I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below with regard to the conviction and sentence. No interference is warranted in this regard. There is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed.
13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 10.06.2022 Lrkm