Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 1999. Case: K. Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 1999 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: E.M.S. Anam and For Respondents: C.N. Sree Kumar, G. Prakash |
| Judges | K.T. Thomas and M.B. Shah, JJ. |
| Issue | Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138; Indian Limitation Act, 1908; Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 29(2), 138, 177, 178(d), 357(3), 386 |
| Citation | AIR 1999 SC 3762, 1999 CriLJ 4606, AIR 1999 SCW 3809, 1999 (8) AD 417 (SC), 2000 (1) AllCJ 1, 1999 (39) AllCriC 844, 1999 (26) AllCriR 2225, 1999 (4) AllMR 452, 1999 AllMR 1845 (Cri), 2000 (1) ALT 42 (Cri), 2000 (2) AndhWR 43, 2000 (2) BankCLR 1, 2005 (3) BankCas 158, 2000 BankJ 200, 2000 (5) BomCR 178, 2000 CalCriLR 94, 1999 (3) ChandCriC 39, 2000 |
| Judgement Date | September 29, 1999 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Thomas, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
This is a case where the complainant and the accused are siblings, being sons of the same parents. They are fighting over a dishonoured cheque. Both must have experienced a roller-coaster ride in this criminal litigation. Fortune favoured the accused in the first round as he scored an acquittal from the trial court, but it favoured the complainant in the next round when the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted his brother of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act"). Perhaps the accused would have remained quiet by then, but for the sentence of imprisonment (six months) which he has now to undergo besides a fine of rupees one lakh which the High Court has imposed on him. So this time it is the turn of the accused to move and hence he has filed this appeal.
-
We thought that the two brothers would settle their disputes over this cheque case and we granted sufficient opportunity to both. But the battle is destined to continue as the expected Settlement eludes like a mirage. We do not know at whose fault the parleys went awry. We cannot but proceed with the case and so we heard the counsel for both.
-
Before dealing with the two main points on which the counsel argued in this Court we may set out the facts in brief. The respondent (who will hereinafter be referred to as "the complainant") presented a cheque which bears the signature of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") before Syndicate Bank's branch office at Kayamkulam (Kerala) on 29-1-1993 for encashment. The cheque was for an amount of rupees one lakh. The Bank bounced the cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The complainant then issued a notice by register post in the address of the accused on 2-2-1993. The notice was returned to the complainant on 15-2-1993. With the following endorsements inscribed thereon:
3-2-1993
Addressee absent
4-2-1993
Addressee absent
5-2-1993
Addressee absent
6-2-1993
Intimation served on addressee's house
As the postal article remained unclaimed till 15-2-1993 it was returned to the sender with a further endorsement "unclaimed".
-
A complaint was filed by the complainant on 4-3-1993 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Adoor (in Pathanamthitta District in Kerala) against the accused under Section 138 of the Act. Among the contentions which the accused raised, one was regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the said Magistrate's Court to try the case as the cheque was dishonoured at Syndicate Bank's branch office at Kayamkulam (it is situate in another district in Kerala). The accused denied having issued the cheque although he owned his signature therein. According to the accused, his brother (the complainant) had snatched away some signed blank cheque leaves from his possession and utilised one such cheque leaf for the present case. He also contended that he did not receive any notice from the complainant regarding dishonour of the cheque and hence no cause of action would have arisen in this case. The complaint, according to him, is not maintainable on that score also.
-
The complainant examined himself as PW 1 and two more witnesses for the prosecution. (PW 2 is the Manager of Syndicate Bank's branch office and PW 3 Devarajan who claimed to have seen the accused issuing the cheque at his shop.) The accused examined his wife as DW 1.
-
The trial Magistrate repelled the defence contention that the cheque leaf was stolen by the complainant. It was held that the cheque was actually issued by the accused to the complainant. However, the Magistrate upheld the contention that his Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case as the cheque was dishonoured by the branch office of the Bank situated in a different district. The Magistrate further held that as the accused did not receive the notice no cause of action has arisen. As a corollary thereof the Magistrate acquitted the accused.
-
The High Court of Kerala, on the appeal preferred by the complainant, set aside the order of acquittal and convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid. Learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the version of the complainant that cheque was issued at the shop of PW 3 which is situated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.P. No. 15794 of 2003. Case: S. Anand Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Chennai-9 and Others. High Court of Madras (India)
...in Section 324 IPC or Section 357 Criminal Procedure Code. It is well settled in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran, 1999 (4) R.C.R. (Cri) 309: AIR 1999 SC 3762:1999 (7) SCC 510, that a Criminal Court while fixing the quantum of compensation has to consider what could be the reasonable amount of comp......
-
Criminal Petition Nos. 4 and 5 of 2009. Case: Dinesh Chandra Shib Vs Hiralal Saha. Guwahati High Court
...to the cases at hand. The issue involved has been decided already by the Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan and Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3762. The Learned Counsel relies upon paragraphs-12, 14 and 15 of the said decision and according to him, the reading of which would clarify the posi......
-
Crl. M.C. 2337/2011. Case: IRIS Computers Ltd. Vs Ghulam Nabi Paul. High Court of Delhi (India)
...Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan,' view has been taken on the jurisdiction keeping the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. S B Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762, whereby 5 ingredients were decided for offences U/s 138 NI Act as The Offence u/s 138 NI Act can be completed only with the concatenation of......
-
Criminal Appeal Nos. 58 and 59 of 2010. Case: John Sebastian Dias S/o Sebastian Dias Vs Shri B. Abdul Kadar, Civil Contractor. High Court of Bombay (India)
...every case where the factual basis of the raising of presumption has been established. The Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762 has held that once the signature on the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act ......
-
W.P. No. 15794 of 2003. Case: S. Anand Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Chennai-9 and Others. High Court of Madras (India)
...in Section 324 IPC or Section 357 Criminal Procedure Code. It is well settled in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran, 1999 (4) R.C.R. (Cri) 309: AIR 1999 SC 3762:1999 (7) SCC 510, that a Criminal Court while fixing the quantum of compensation has to consider what could be the reasonable amount of comp......
-
Criminal Petition Nos. 4 and 5 of 2009. Case: Dinesh Chandra Shib Vs Hiralal Saha. Guwahati High Court
...to the cases at hand. The issue involved has been decided already by the Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan and Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3762. The Learned Counsel relies upon paragraphs-12, 14 and 15 of the said decision and according to him, the reading of which would clarify the posi......
-
Crl. M.C. 2337/2011. Case: IRIS Computers Ltd. Vs Ghulam Nabi Paul. High Court of Delhi (India)
...Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan,' view has been taken on the jurisdiction keeping the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. S B Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762, whereby 5 ingredients were decided for offences U/s 138 NI Act as The Offence u/s 138 NI Act can be completed only with the concatenation of......
-
Criminal Appeal Nos. 58 and 59 of 2010. Case: John Sebastian Dias S/o Sebastian Dias Vs Shri B. Abdul Kadar, Civil Contractor. High Court of Bombay (India)
...every case where the factual basis of the raising of presumption has been established. The Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762 has held that once the signature on the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act ......
-
The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 - Avoidable Confusion?
...the question of Territorial Jurisdiction was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran vs. SankaranVaidhyanBalan&Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3762 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after duly considering Sections 177, 178 & 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, held that the Territo......