Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. On perusal of oral evidence of PW-1, it forthcoming that the accused No.2 suggested that the lorry number not mentioned in Ex-P6, 7. Further accused No.2 disputed about the cheque in question issued for security purpose, but complainant company has been misused the said cheque and further she contended during cross examination of PW-1 that she did not received any materials as averred in the complaint, she cleared entire due amount and there is a Nil statement from complainant company even though she did not received any materials later they raised invoices and maintained any ledger statement, the accused No.2 having outstanding due on imaginary figures. Further accused No.2 admitted during course of cross examination that her company situated at Doddaballapura Industrial area and she has not obtained any document regarding shown the cheque issued for security purpose. Further she admitted that the complainant company paid the tax to the government and complainant informed about the balance kept pending in the account of the accused.

18. On the other hand, after remanded by First Appellate court the accused No.2 give her oral evidence before this court as DW-1. She stated in her evidence that the first accused is a firm, the 2nd accused is a partner she doing business transaction with complainant since 2010. When she commencing business transaction with complainant they took signed cheque for security purpose for future business transaction. The said cheque belongs to Punjab National Bank, commercial street branch. She transferred her bank a/c in the year 2011 from commercial street branch to Indiranagar branch, PNB bank. The cheque in question presented in the year 2013 by the complainant company before PNB, commercial street branch. The ledger a/c maintained by the complainant as on date 8-8-2013 the accused No.2 balance was Nil. She normally ordered raw materials over phone through complainant company manager one Sony and after purchase she immediately made payment to purchase materials through NEFT and online and sometimes she use to made payment by way of cash. Then complainant company transported materials to accused No.2. She never purchased any materials by giving cheque at any point of time. She stops purchase materials from complainant company, then compliannt company misused her security cheque and filed false case against accused No.1 and 2. The complainant company did not send any materials to accused and there is no acknowledgment by the accused for receiving materials from complainant company. There is no separate agreement between accused and complainant company for paying interest, she did not received any notice from complainant company. The complainant company suo moto raised invoices on 10-8-2013. She did'nt received any materials as per invoice dt.10-8-2013. They used her signed cheque for the above invoice dt.10-8-2013. They misused her signed cheque and she produced one document i.e., certificate issued by PNB dt.2-9-2021 and which is marked as Ex-D7 (in CC No.11639/2014). She subjected cross examination . During course of cross examination she admitted that her complete name Smt.Yamuna Ramesh and her husband name Ramesh and she was the partner of M/s Klean Well polymers and proprietrix of M/s Klean well Hygne pro and both registered address No.2372, 6th HAL 2nd stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore- 560008 her husband was another partner to M/s Klean well polymers and he came as a partner from the year 2011-2012, her husband doing daily business transaction of firm M/s Klean well hygine pro started on 13-7-2009. M/s Klean Well polymers started on 1-4-2011. M/s Klean well Hygine pro doing tissue paper manufacturing business. M/s Klean well polymers doing business of manufacturing of plastic bags. For manufacturing plastic bags, paper is required, both proprietorship and partnership firm manufacturing unit located in Doddaballapur in shed No.B17 and B19. She get necessary permission from competent authority and VAT permission, she regularly paying PAN, TIN excise VAT to competent authorities. M/s Klean Well hygine pro and M/s Klean well polymers both factories were closed in the year 2020. DW-1 admitted during course of cross examination that she having business transaction with complainant company since 2009-2010 and she placed orders when she required materials and complainant company supplied materials to her firm and proprietorship. There is no separate agreement between accused No.2 and complainant regarding making payment for materials supplied by the complainant company. She contended during course of cross examination that she had document to show she always use to pay money to complainant company and then they supplied materials to her. She had phone message and whatsapp message documents in her phone. Further DW-1 admitted during course of cross examination that the complainant company had been supplied raw materials to accused and they maintained running a/c for such materials supplied to accused. She clearly admitted she did not gave any reply notice to notice issued by complainant u/s 138(b). The cheque in question bearing signature of authorized signatory she did not gave any authorization to sign on cheques. Further she admitted that she did not get any acknowledgment from complainant company for having security cheques in their possession. Further she deposed during cross examination that in Ex-D2 (in CC No.11639/2014) dt.13-6-2013 she transferred amount of Rs.2 lakh to complainant company she had RTGS request letter with her custody and she undertake for production of the same before this court. Further she contended during cross examination that as on date of 13-6- 2013 there is no outstanding balance by M/s Klean Hygine pro and Kleanwell polymers towards complainant company and DW-1 denied the suggestion of complainant that after payment of Rs.2 lakhs M/s Kleanwell polymers having outstanding due of Rs.3,72,216/-. Further she admitted that on 17-6-2013 Rs.3,52,216/- paid by accused and having total balance of Rs.20,000/-. Further she admitted that on 18-6- 2013 she again paid Rs.20,000/- and her balance was Nil. Further she contended during course of cross examination that on 13-6-2013 Rs.2 lakh transferred to complainant company through RTGS from Kleanwell hygine pro. But this fact was not intimated in written form to complainant. Further she contended that she made payment after invoice raised by the complainant company i.e., on 18-6-2013 from her M/s Kleanwell polymers a/c. She having facility of net banking to her bank a/c and she gave her mobile number to bank . Further she admitted if any payment credited to her a/c or any amount debited from her a/c she could receive messages from her bank, but she did not received any message from bank regarding dishonour of cheque in question. Further she admitted that when she get bank statement, there was mention of dishonour of this cheque in her bank statement. After got information about dishonour of instant cheque in question she spoke with complainant in the month of October and November 2013. Further admitted during course of cross examination that she got international standard certificate for her company for manufacturing accounting and administration for production of tissue papers and further she admitted she was the customer for Infosys for a period of 4 to 5 years. Further she stated during course of cross examination that they maintained relevant registers for input and output transport of materials at the spot of security outpost. She had problem to produce the said registers due to company closed. Further she admitted during cross examination that they ought to pay VAT returns and excise returns every completion of 3 months to her companies. Further she denied about the complainant paid VAT tax on Ex-P6,7, 21 and 22 and contended she did not received any goods from complainant as per Ex-P6,7, 21 and 22. Further she contended that Ex-D4 she made tax payment through online, she did not have original return document. Ex-D4 (in CC NO.11639/2014) pertaining to VAT taxes to her company, there is no way concern to complainant company. Ex-D5 (in CC No.11639/2014) relates to accused No.2 and tax department and she undertakes for production of entire documents pertaining to Ex-D5 before this court. Further she admitted that in CC 11639/14 Ex-D1 no where relates to complainant. But she contended she informed orally to the complainant about Ex-D1. Further she denied the suggestion of complainant she had been always received material through trucks. But she herself deposed materials supplied complainant through trucks. Further she admitted that the company name mentioned in Ex-D5 i.e., Orient paper mills amlai was not direct seller to accused No.2. Further she denied the suggestion of complainant that do you had paper pertaining to orient paper mills amlai in your office or house, but she deposed verify and submit later. Further she contended that she did not received materials from complainant company, therefore she did not verify E-sugam portal. Further she admitted there can be chance to see E- sugam portal the details uploaded by anybody and she contended she did not check E-sugam portal details in the year 2013, materials were supplied by other suppliers. Further she also denied E-mail conversation between complainant company and accused No.2 husband as per Ex-P9. She admitted in the year 2013 her husband working as marketing head. Further she deposed that she having net banking facility to both factories i.e., M/s Kleanwell hygine pro and M/s Kleanwell polymers and she only authorized signatory for net banking. Further she admitted Ex-D8 (in CC No.11639/2014) issued by bank on the request of accused No.2. Further she admitted that she did not informed to complainant company in writing for transfer her company account but she contended she informed orally. Further DW-1 admitted that there is a practice when she received goods from complainant company, its contain acknowledgment. If there is any discrepancy or damage in goods immediately sent back photocopy of the discrepancy or damage to complainant company. further she clearly admitted she did not took hire vehicles for transportation of finished goods. Further she expressed inability to produce expense register pertaining to her factory from June 2013 to August 2013 and document pertaining to Ex-D4 (in CC No.11639/2014) input breakup claim and denied the suggestion of complainant. Ex-D6 i.e., revised return created for the purpose of this case and other suggestions putforth by complainant are clearly and categorically denied.

22. The purpose of called and examined DW-2 by the accused that to strengthening the Ex-D8 (in CC No.11639/2014). Admittedly DW-2 was not author of document, but anyhow he was authorized by concerned bank manager to depose evidence before this court. It is admitted fact the accused No.2 transferred her bank a/c without informing complainant in the year 2010 in written form, but she contended she informed orally to complainant company. The issuance of cheque without having sufficient balance is an offence, it is duty bounded on a/c holder before issuing cheques they could have full knowledge about consequence of issuance of cheque. The accused No.2 having business transaction with complainant company since 2009 to 2012 and she had outstanding due of lakhs together to complainant company. The complainant company made request and demanded several times for clearing outstanding due for continuation of business with complainant company. The accused No.2 and her husband requested several time for extension of time for clear outstanding due and commence further business with complainant company. The accused No.2 fully aware of this facts, she intentionally issued cheque in question which is took from bank in the year 2010. It is duty of accused No.2 when she get transfer a/c from one branch to another branch she shall return entire cheques took from the bank. But she did not do so. She contending in this case that she get transfer her firm a/c from cantonment branch to Indiranagar branch and she took cheque in the year 2010 and alleged transaction pertains 2013. Therefore there is no chance of handover cheques in the year 2013, the complainant company misused her security cheque which is in the possession of complainant company. There is no bar for issuance of cheque which is earlier took from the bank. If she really return cheques to bank and immediately she intimated in written form to complainant company that scenario is different. Therefore from this court opinion, the contention raised by accused No.2 regarding she get transferred her firm bank a/c from cantonment branch to Indiranagar branch and evidence adduced by DW-2 was no where helpful case of accused. Further it is important to note the facts raised by DW-2 during course of cross examination whether non CTS cheques were honoured by the bank or not till today. The learned counsel for complainant placed RBI notification dt.18- 03-2013 and Punjab National Bank policy for collection of cheque dt.01-04-2013, in that notification RBI instructed no fresh post dated cheque (PDC)/equated monthly installment (EMI) cheques (either in old format or new CTS 2010 format) shall be accepted by lending banks in locations where the facility of ECS/RECS (debit) is available. Lending bank shall make all efforts to convert existing PDCs in such locations into ECS/RECS (debit) by obtaining fresh mandates from the borrowers. The above instructions are issued u/s 18 of the payment and settlement systems Act (Act 51 of 2007). So above notification there is provision to honour non CTS cheques. The DW-2 deposed before this court against to recent RBI circular and Punjab National Bank policy for collection of cheques and instrument circular No.6/20 dt.30-03-2021. Hence the contention of the accused that they issued cheque in the year 2010 and complainant company presented cheque in question before commercial street branch. The accused No.2 got transferred her a/c with effect from 14-10-2010. The cheque in question presented in the year 2013. So it is clear the complainant company misused signed cheque of accused No.2. This defence was unsustainable, therefore rejected as meritless. Further it is important to mention about excise tax document, the complainant mainly relied excise tax document. Hence it is worthful to discuss much. (In general an excise tax is a tax is imposed on the sale of specific goods or services or on certain uses. Federal excise tax is usually imposed on the sale of things like fuel, airline tickets, heavy trucks and highway tractors, indore tanning, tires, tobacco and other goods services. Business that are subject to excise tax generally must. File a form 720, quarterly federal excise tax return to report the tax to the IRS Excise taxes are imposed on a vide variety of goods services and activities. The tax may be imposed at the time of No.(1) import (2) sale by the manufacturer (3) sale by the retailer (4) use by the manufacturer or consumer. Many excise taxes go into trust funds for projects related to the taxed product or service, such as highway and airport improvements. Excise taxes are independent of income taxes. Often, the retailer manufacturer or importer must pay the excise tax to the IRS and file the form 720. They may pass the cost of the excise tax and to the buyer. Some excise taxes are collected by a 3rd party, the 3rd party then sent the tax to the IRS and files to the form 720. The IRS does accept paper excise tax returns. However electronic filing is strongly encouraged, when possible to make this process easier for tax payers. The contact information for all approved E-file transmitters of excise forms is listed on IRS.gov. businesses can submit forms online 24 hours a day. When businesses E-file, they get confirmation that the IRS received their form. Also, E-filing reduces processing time and errors. To electronically file, business ax payers will have to pay the providers fee for online submission. In the instant case, the manufacturer of paper directly sent materials to consignee i.e., Kleanwell Hygine pro, No.B19, Doddaballapur. As per Ex-P21 to 24 there is question of paying CST does not arise. Because the manufacturer or buyer or 3rd party can file excise tax to IRS. In the instant case, the tax collected by the competent authority. Therefore question for paying CST does not arise.

25. In the present case, since the cheque as well as the signature has been accepted by the accused No.2 the presumption u/s 139 would operate. Thus the burden was on the accused No.2 to disprove the cheque or the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability. However it may be noted that the cheque was dishonoured because Exceeds arrangement, this implies that the accused No.2 had knowledge of the cheque being presented to the bank. The accused No.2 took defence in this case that the accused having account in Punjab National Bank and she got transferred the said account in the year 2010. When a/c transferred from Punjab National Bank, commercial street branch to Indiranagar branch, the question of issuing alleged cheque in the year 2013 does not arise. Her a/c was got transferred with effect from 14-10-2010. Therefore she trying to project her case as the complainant company misused her security cheque. Admittedly she did not returned cheques obtained from Punjab National Bank, commercial street branch and transferring a/c from commercial street branch to Indiranagar branch was not informed to complainant in written form. Thus the story broughtout by accused is unworthy of credit. Apart from being unsupported by any evidence. Once factum of bank a/c and signature on disputed cheque admitted it is mandatory to the part of court to presume in favour of complainant, but such presumption shall be rebutted. The complainant discharged his burden by placing Ex-P1 to 26 ((in CC No.11639/2014) and Ex-P1 to 22 (in present case) and he success in proving his complaint averments with oral and documentary evidence. Now onus shifted on accused to prove she did not received any materials from complainant company as alleged in the complaint and she cleared entire outstanding due amount towards complainant company. But accused failed to rebut the same by cogent and believable evidence. The accused No.2. mainly took contention is that the complainant has misused the blank signed cheque issued by the accused No.2 But accused No.2 has not lodged any complaint with regard to that nor given any reply to the notice issued by the complainant. These defences are not accepted by this court. Hence in the instant case the accused has failed to rebut presumption available to complainant under section 118 A and 139 of NI Act. Hence the inevitable conclusion is that accused has committed an offence u/s 138 of NI Act.