IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
"32.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE C R ;<uMARASwAM\.rj"V-A.'fQf»_
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4709/2010_i= 4' %
BETWEEN:
1 M/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERE UNOE
COMPANIES ACT, .» ' . ,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFI.§fE~._AT No.28',
ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE 42*, ' ,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTORS
MR. TPHANI MAHESH _ . A
MR. A.M.SHARATH CHA"NOR.A.'«._ 1
2 SR: PHANIjMAHr:S'I:_ .
S/O SRI -T C, AS:-'i"'JVARTF!NA*RAYAN
AGEDABOUT 45'YEARS_,_
DERCTOR, . .
M/S DUO F'.RO'PERTIES (P) LTD.,
NQ .253,' ULSOOR ROA D,
E3A'NG4'-.\LO..RE 42." _____ .. «
'<3 I MR A,M~.. SHARATH CHANDRA
' S/'0'A_C..MUNE,VENKATE GOWOA
= AGED ABOUT: 49 YEARS,
D.IRCTD~R_ S' '
M/S DUO PROPERTIES (P) LTD.,
No.23, 'IULSOOR ROAD,
A SANGALORE 42. PETITIONERS
1(:3,x?"'.SRI;*" RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S. A K S
..._/\SSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
10
AND :
MR P. DAYANANDA PAI
S/O LATE P NARASIMHA PAI
NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA
COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE 52. REs'PONiOENT it 2
(av NUS. 5 MAHESH & COMPANY, AOVOOATEISI}
CRLP FILED U/8.482 OF CR,F«'..C ev THE'ITAOVOCOATE:'_r3ORj';THE
PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS"-.lj+ON'BLE +::Oe_RT, 'MAY BE '
PLEASED TO QUASH THE EN.T1PE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2"7105/O9 PENDING ON THE _'F-.ILE~»..eOF THE, xv ACMM,
BANGALORE. ."a ~' Ea4.',
THIS CRL.P IS r:OMING~O.N}EOR_Ao:§4Issi'ONTHIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE l=_..O-.~..L_O~_wINi:3: Z,
ThisvT"Crimi;n;al fi'le'd"V:under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. _for the petitioners praying to
quash the entire.p'I'OVeeed'I~nsgs~O"'in C.C. No. 27105/2009 pending
Bangalore.
_ "'vi7«hOe»?evllieard learned Counsel for the petitioners
V as wellas lea'ri-"zed Counsel for the respondent.
The primary facts of the case is as under:
O;One Mr.P Dayananda Pai has presented a complaint
Oefore the XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
5} V /
svr
3
The accused has issued a cheque bearing No.197996 dated
26.03.2009, drawn on The Dhanaiakshmi Bank Ltd.,
M.G.Road Branch, M.G.Road, Bangaiore, for a of
Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Only). The
was presented for encashment and the__V”‘sarn[e’~Iéwasfi
dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient:’fund«s”;i’A
legai notice was issued on 29».p_8.2oo–9;si. In spitejsr’Iie*g’aIVy
notice, the accused failed to pay theramounwt ftiheiirveby they
have alleged to have comr:n~~i.ttedi’Aba’nto’tfee’c”e_punishable under
Sections 138 and 141 of I\tegotiA.ai:§ieV>:fnst’ru’reeh_t.s Act, 1881.
4. It isgthe;;:ontienteLo~~i{ or B Naik, learned
Senior Counsel’ of the petitioners that the
order sheet has not been signed by the
_.-vlearnevd-J,/Sdid!.V Ci;§¥Vi’;«…53@hga|ore. He further submits that
“cogr;éVi’z’a.,nce_V”tai<Veii._ by the learned Magistrate is without
app|'ica'tioh.V The cheque has not been presented
' within rhonbtéhs from the date of handing over of the cheque
coympiainant. The attention of this Court was invited to
__j'$ec't'ion'A138(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
;"'i 5'
eff
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent reiies on the
ruiing in the case of Surendra Singh and Others Vs Staise of
Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 sc 194,
para 14 of the said ruling reads as under:
“14. As soon as Huejudgfoenfis’denye£ed,g”hAT
that becomes the operative prontoguncernent_.of’~t,he ”
Court. The iaw then pro\tid’esVforA’the
which it is to be authenticated.1:an.d macieilcertavign. i
The ruies regarding: this not
form the essence ofaithe nwattier_:’éaihd..:vif~.__there is
irregularity ins. §arryin’g” ‘ curable.
Thus, if a 4ji;i;c;|4gi;%i»ie_nt.vhappens:_4not”‘to”be signed and
is inadvit-a_rtent_gi’3V’/V. onjrainvd executed, the
wouid be valid
because’ the can be shown to have
been vaiiclihtyv stand good despite
dej’e’ct.s .. mode of its subsequent
o A autheh.tiCia.tion.”‘”‘ iiii
._ F-4!_e%.1a”i’sb”~.,re§»iies”on another ruling in the case of Ashok
iifeshwant v’«.’B.a’dave Vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar
anpnthe”r reported in (2001) 3 scc 726, in Head Notes
A.iaoi:i ‘>i.’55,”Ait is held that:
“A. Six months’ period has to be
caicuiated for purpose of proviso (a) from the
I
if
5
date mentioned on the face of cheque and not
from any earlier date when drawer actually gave
cheque to drawee — High Court rightly dismissed
appel|ant–drawer’s appeal against issue of proces.s’ri._:”r._
against him «~ Words and Phrases – “post
cheque”.
B. Post dated cheque;remainsi_ga-i”bi.|:l:
exchange till the date written o’n__theA’face’ .- ”
on that date it becomes acheque.
And it is furthe’r_he|dg..t’li’ati_f
“For prosecuting offence
under Secti.o.:3::’j.».38 oi”th’e~}i’\:egojtiable”instruments
Act it is in.e\Jita’§if5:|e that the c_hejo.ue iilslllpresented to
the of six months from the
date or} which.V.it-dis d’r–a_wn’°or within the period of
itsV_validli”t\,IV’vihit:_hever…-19 earlier. When a post
dated__l”chveque”-is,written or drawn, it is only a bill
A zof exic.ha.n”g–e and so long the same remains a bill
it of’e;<:ci–1angVe.,'.the provisions of Section 138 are not
"a_p%p|ica.b'i:e_to the said instrument. The post dated
cheqiie becomes a cheque within the meaning of
* Scectiyon 138 of the Act on the date which is
'' –..V''-w_ritten thereon and the 6 months' period has to
be reckoned for the purposes of proviso (a) to
Section 138 of the Act fromthe said date."
§:':f£__:'
6
6. The learned counsel for respondent relies on
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act — Presum,oti»ons
as to negotiable instruments sub clause (b) reads as~~unjc’.e__r:’wl’
(b) as to date ~ that every nego:ti»ab:liAe:’ _
instrument bearing a date was -made «o_r’-‘drawn’on_v’*~7’
such date.”
7. It is the contention ofu°th_e’ learned. lygeniorgcounsel
that since the ordersheet’da”t«ed notsigned, the
proceedings has to be quas_l1_eVd’.w._ A
8. Sec’tio’n__45».-5;’–_Vof t,h.e__;’€r,Pi_C§’,_’rea’ds as follows:
,—-“–4.6S’;~ViFindi;ng ‘or’–.s’ente~n.c-=5 when reversible
by reason of “erro4r,i o’rn_i:ssi_on -or irregularity.
Subj.ect._Vt’o.:the provisions hereinbefore
cgontlaiened, nofinding, sentence or order passed
5=T”fCol’urt ofvflcompetent jurisdiction shall be
‘ “altered by a Court of appeal,
“.confirma’ti_oriVor revision on account of any error,
ornissyiionvh or irregularity in the complaint,
, sggmrnons, warrant, proclamation, order,
i.jud_gment or other proceedings before or during
‘gtrial 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
. /~’
€8,-
7
of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been
occasioned thereby.
(2) In determining whether any err0r,.g”.”*–,g
omission or irregularity in any proceeding und’er*i..”‘-..”‘v
this Code, or any error, or irregularity irt
sanction for the prosecution has occasi-o,nedV”a: .
failure of justice, the Court shah haveVregard”
the fact whether the objection°COul.C’Vand”S’h0uid ”
have been raised at anl__’e-ar|ieri”v-stage
3,r0Ce§(rj1’Et1l9g’case of M l”I53_l’f’li$vi/i! “:15 K ,4″a’1l,t)’!fa;fi§am and
Others in Crl.A.No.701/i’9A’£§8,’– Vs Padam
Sambhai/,_ Jain” inf Crl. A. No. 84 9/2002, Hari
Nara.-‘n Bihar and Others in
__.Crl.A.Ala,84.8/20U2V_,Vreported in (2002) 5 scc 570 at para
A”2__1 »re’a-d_Vs u n ~r.: __
A a grave iliegality is committed,
the s__uper’ior courts should “not interfere. They
should’ allow the Court which is seized of the
A,VVrn”a.tter to go on with it. There is always an
‘appellate Court to correct the errors. One should
keep in mind the principle behind Section 465
Cr.P.C. Any and every irregularity or infraction
cf
8
of a procedural provision cannot constitute a
ground for interference by a superior Court
unless such irregularity or infraction has caused .
irreparable prejudice to the party and requires to V
be correct at that stage tends to defeat the
of justice instead of serving those endsjfi’
should not be that a man with _enough _r’faea’nS’;V ”
able to keep the law at bay. :Ihat..vi{bu’l–2d
the failure of the very system.”
10. In the decision of Mohjamwedll flfiulla Vs
Emperor reported in AIRCJ __77, the Hon’b|e
High Court of Rangoon hel:d”‘as- if
”(A).. s_g{.1;ji365j”ahd 357 –
Omissionlffltowlgritevj:ud.gme_’nt before passing
sentence shQu’licl_CjV*._n’o.tm:lA”ivitiate trial uniess it
occasions.’ failure f’of’«j.ustice ~ Criminal P.C.,
s4..%.537; if _
it is desirable that Magistrates
.jsh’o:i:l’d.,_Ao”beyVthe express provisions of the law,
the”‘i1<)_rn'ission to write a judgment before
pio..no.unc'ing a sentence should not necessarily
.. Vvuitiate.' the trial, unless such omission has in
'v.,faf};t occasioned a failure of justice: 14 All. 242
and 27 Mad. 237, not Fo|l.; 23 Cal.502, Re|.on.
aw/I-'
9
(8) Criminal P.C., S 367 — Omission to
sign judgment is mere irreguiarity curable by
Criminal P.C., $3.537. H
Where a Magistrate prepares a judgment
but does not sign it, such omission to sign
judgment amounts to a mere irreguia–rfit’y,.,l,:
curable by 5-3.537: A.I.R. Zi925_AJ|,__ 299;”‘Réii’,;;v,””‘v a
1’!
Of}.
11. Appiying the principi*e,s”~~laidl.down,_in, tiiVe””aoove ” V
mentioned ruling, in my view, in,-case*,– if-»t_he order sheet has
not been signed, it is ‘l under the
procedural law. orgnissliofn wil~lTn.ot’ cause in failure of
justice. Fu’rthe.r,’j:,thi§?~:objecti-on ri’as”not been raised by the
accused in”the._Tria_| Cou.rt;.._,Fort_he first time, in this Court this
objection has’l’b..ee’n/Fiiise-dl.”~7i’:herefore, the contention of the
,1′”|’e«a_rneri_j’iseniior Counse-l-~~«that the order sheet has not been
the proceedings have to be quashed has
i no forchelandytilie same cannot be accepted.
12.’fi_The next contention urged by learned Senior
that cognizance taken by learned magistrate is
. application of mind and therefore it is bad in iaw.
‘of
E0
13. In this regard, the impugned order reads as
unden
“Heard the learned Counsel for the.f”~~._
complainant. Perused the original complaint an_”c’:i~v..f”-fr
documents produced alongwith the comp|ai_n–t_:é.a’n’dV.’ft, ;_.
the sworn statement of the complainant……Q:ri_t’l1–e: ._
basis of the material availablefionirec_o’rd.-3 I,:”arn._”7′
satisfied that the complainant i’has.’.Arnadle’ our a ”
primafacie case for an offen_Ce_.punishVa’o,le
of the N I Act, Hence, Ixproceed the
following:
Register’–a__crimi’n’al– ca accused
in RegisteVr__’:Noii.’sII_I offence ” punishable u/s
138,’otth’eri:i$!veg’otiVab.l:e’«tiinstrttmlevnts Act, 1881, and
issue-.,s{smrrioVns’,'”‘to by RPAD for the
aforesauid, ” offiencea PF and postage paid.
Ftetui”nab|e by_V_V1€’3/12/09.”
careful perusal of impugned order, it is clear
,ll~1.agistrate has perused the original complaint
‘ and do«curr}ve’n.t,s= produced alongwith the complaint and also
_.,R/j,”.’A”sviiorn,statement and on the basis of the materials available
=recor’d, he was satisfied that there was prima facie case
.:’_4aig.ai«nst the petitioner–accused. The learned Magistrate has
gr
wkj
I]
focused his attention to the averment made in the complaint.
Therefore, it IS difficult to say that the learned Magtstratehas
not applied his mind. Therefore, the contention
learned Senior Counsei that the cognizance ta|<e.n_:" H
law has no force.
I
15. The last contention urged the le.a”r’n,ed__HSe:hior
Counsel for petitioner ‘_-is that’ ‘the,::chVequ’e” been
presented within 6 month5s*««.f.riJmf.the~d’atei.of~.handing over the
cheque to the complainant.»»- ail-sot;niiitedllattention of this
Court to Section_Vi.:v38:If{a’) oi”Neg_otia:hlein’stl”ument Act.
16. ylilnlvthtistvregnvard,_’:lea.’rned..”Counsei for the respondent
has relied on ‘the case of Asho/<:""months' period has to be calculated for
AA purposes of proviso (a) from the date mentioned
.V:o'nj_«the face of cheque and. not from any earlier
date when drawer actually gave cheque to
'T drawee."
Further, Section :L18(b) of the Negotiable Instruments
Act as to date -~ that every negotiabie instrument bearing a
date was made or drawn on such date. Six monthsg’.ihasV.t_obe”
calculated from the date mentioned in the chequV_e__’~.jfihveirefore’,.V_4’f
it is difficult to accept the contention”foVf’:’ti1e”<lea:rn-e_d'«_$en'i'or7
Counsel that the cheque has not beenlpresenterdtwiithi'n"'av"
period of six months from the date"'o:n'whichlitisiid'i*aii§ivn:
17. There is no pr’ec’i’se applied
to quash the proceedings;EéichEase~”‘~hVa’s5._’;t.h~erefore to be
considered on its2_”‘o\)§ijiri:ii’n1e.rit decision has to
be taken to not. The learned
Magistratefihass’focusedrhis”~att*en’tion to the averrnents made
in the C0l’i’i[5’ia_il’It_ a’n_d”‘iV.’tal<:'é_.ncognizance of the offence.
4'Avermer.rt if made Vninltvhe compiaint constitutes the offence
the principle laid down in the decisions
cited.s'u.praV"'iiAe'_;,__ 2lifJOi.1(3) SCC 726 and aiso not signing of the
order s'h'eet'ibeing an curable irregularity, I am of the opinion
"it*i.s. not rarest of rare case where this Court can exercise
inherelntwjpower to qiiashthe proceedings.
/,
E?'/,
£1
18. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is d:’sm:’sse?d.