CHICO URSULA D SOUZA Vs. GOA PLAST PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions are filed by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 ('act' for short) and whose convictions and sentences have been upheld by the learned Session Judges.

(2.) SINCE the facts involved are almost common, by consent of Counsel they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The cases from which these revisions arise, pertain to the cheques of different dates given by the accused, with letter dated 20-7-1992. The accused was the Managing Director of the complainant which is a registered company. The details of the said cheques are as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_353_MHLJ6_2008Html1.htm</FRM> The case regarding the first cheque No. 0160171 dated 10-1-1993 finally ended in conviction against the accused by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court dated 20-11-2003 reported in 2004 (2) Mh. L. J. (S. C.) 348 = 2004 (2) SCC 235. These cases had also landed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at one stage and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to remand the cases by another judgment dated 7-3-2003 reported in 2003 (3) SCC 232.

(3.) THE case of the complainant which is a registered company and whose factory apparently came to be closed down, is that the said cheques were issued because the accused owed the complainant a certain amount and in order to pay the said amount, the accused had drawn the said post dated cheques. The cheques were presented for payment into the account of the complainant, and as far as criminal Revision No. 4/2007 is concerned, the said cheque was returned on 12-5-1997 with remark 'present again'. The complainant thereafter sent the notice to the accused demanding the payment. However, the accused did not reply to the notice. Thereafter, the complaints came to be filed on different dates and in support of the case of the complainant, one I. B. Mulchandi came to be examined pursuant to a power of attorney purportedly given by Mr. Audhut timblo, the Director of the complainant. The case of the accused, when examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was that he had issued the cheques under a mistaken belief that the amount was due. It was further his case that on finding a note (letter from Mr. Timblo) he had realised that he had not owed any money to the complainant and therefore he informed Mr. Audhut Timblo in writing that there was no liability due. The accused examined himself in support of his defence.