Holding

A presumption under Section 139 that a cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability stands unless rebutted; the accused failed to rebut it, therefore they are liable under Section 138.

Summary

The complainants, partners of Rati Woolen Mills, alleged that cheques issued by Munish Jain in his capacity as director of A.T. Overseas Ltd., a sister concern of Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd., were given for payment of goods supplied to Shree Nath Spinners. The cheques were dishonoured and the accused were charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court and the High Court acquitted the accused, holding that no consideration existed because the cheques were issued by a different legal entity. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 139 in favour of the holder applies, and since the accused did not rebut it, the cheques were deemed issued for discharge of a liability incurred by the sister concern. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside, the accused were convicted under Section 138 and a fine of Rs 10,00,000 was imposed as compensation.

Issues considered

The applicability of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when a cheque is issued by one sister company on behalf of another.
Whether the accused can be held liable under Section 138 for dishonour of such a cheque in absence of a direct contractual relationship with the payee.
The burden of proof and rebuttal of the presumption of consideration.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 235(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 406, s. 420
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138, s. 139

Subjects

Negotiable Instruments ActSection 138Section 139presumption of considerationsister concernscorporate veilcheque dishonourcriminal liabilityfineconviction

Judgment

[2011) 9 S.C.R. 328

A ANIL SACHAR & ANR.
v.
M/S SHREE NATH SPINNERS P. LTD. & ORS. ETC.
(Criminal Appeals Nos. 1413-1414 of 2011)
*JULY 19, 2011 AND AUGUST 17, 2011
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
c ss. 138 and 139 - Presumption in favour of holder of
cheque - Cheques issued by one of the two sister concerns
for dues towards the goods supplied to the other of the said
concerns - Dishonour of cheques - Complaints - Acquittal
of accused on the ground that goods had been supplied to
0
one company while cheques were issued by the other and
there was no liability of the company issuing the cheques -
HELD: The complainants had established before the trial
court that there was an understanding among the
complainants and the accused that in consideration of supply
E of goods to one company, the other was to make the payment
- This understanding was on account of the fact that both the
companies were sister concerns and their Directors were
common - In the circumstances, it has been proved that in
consideration of supply of goods to one sister concern, the
F other had made the payment - The tnal court ought to have
considered provisions of s. 139 of the Act, which make it clear
that there is a presumption with regard to consideration when
a cheque has been issued by the drawer of the cheque - Of
course, the presumption refeffed to in s. 139 is rebuttable -
G In the instant case, no effort was made for rebuttal of the
presumption and, therefore, the presumption must go in
favour of the holder of the cheques - Accused held guilty of
the offence punishable u/s 138 - On the date of hearing the
* Conviction recorded on 19.7.2011 and sentences passed on. 17.8.2011.
H 328
ANIL SACHAR & ANR. v. SHREE NATH SPINNERS 329
P. LTD. & ORS. ETC.
;
accused on question of sentence, the records indicated that A
one of the accused had died - Therefore, appeal as regards
him stands abated - In the circumstances, imposition of a
fine of Rs.10,00,0001- on the other accused payable to the
complainants as compensation would meet the ends ofjustice
- Ordered accordingly - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 B
- s.235(2).
The appellants filed complaints against the
respondents for offences punishable uls 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of C
cheques issued by respondent no. 3, as Director of M/s
'ATO' Ltd. towards the dues of M/S 'SNS' P. Ltd. It was
the case of the complainants that both M/s SNS P. Ltd.
and Mis ATO Ltd. were sister concerns with common
directors and respondent no. 3 who signed the cheques
as Director of Mis 'ATO' Ltd. was also the director of Mis D
'SNS' P. Ltd. One of the accused died pending trial. The
trial court acquitted the accused holding that the goods
had been supplied by the complainants to Mis 'SNS' P
Ltd., but cheques had been issued by Mis 'ATO' Ltd. and
not by 'SNS' P. Ltd. and as Mis 'SNS' P. Ltd. and Mis 'ATO' E
Ltd. were two distinct entities, there was no liability of Ml
s 'ATO" Ltd. and, therefore, dishonour of the cheques in
question would not make the signatory of the cheques
from the account of Mis 'ATO' Ltd. liable under the
provisions of the Act. The appeals having been F
dismissed by the High Court, the complainants filed the
instant appeals.
Recording the conviction, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The complainants had established before G
the trial court that there was an understanding among the
complainants and the accused that in consideration of
supply of goods to Mis. 'SNS' P. Ltd., Mis. 'ATO' Ltd. was
to make the payment. This understanding was on
account of the fact that both the companies were sister H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A concerns and their Directors were common. In the
circumstances, it has been proved that in consideration
of supply of goods to M/s. 'SNS' P. Ltd., M/s. 'ATO' Ltd.
had made the payment. These facts are very well
reflected in the statement made in the complaints and in
B the evidence by the complainants which have not been
controverted. The trial court, therefore, was not right
when it came to the conclusion that there was no reason
for Mis. 'ATO' Ltd. to give the cheques to the
complainants. [para 14] [336-F-H; 337-A-B]
c lndowind Energy Ltd. v. Wescare (India) Ltd. and Anr.
2010 (5) SCR 284 = 2010 (5) SCC 306; and Rahul Builders
v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals and Anr. 2007 (11)
SCR 951 =2008(2) sec 321 - relied on

D 1.2 The trial court materially erred while coming to a
conclusion that in criminal law no presumption can be
raised with regard to consideration as no goods had
been supplied by the complainants to M/s. 'ATO' Ltd. The
trial court ought to have considered provisions of s.139
E of the Act, which makes it clear that there is a
presumption with regard to consideration when a cheque
has been paid by the drawer of the cheque. In the instant
case, Mis. 'ATO' Ltd. paid the cheque which had been
duly signed by one of its Directors. The said person is
F also a Director in M/s. 'SNS' P. Ltd. and both are sister
concerns having common Directors. Extracts of books
of accounts had been produced before the trial court so
as to show that both the companies were having several
transactions and they used to pay on behalf of each other
G to other parties or their creditors. This fact strengthens
the presumption to the effect that M/s. 'ATO' Ltd. had paid
the cheques to the complainants, which had been signed
by the Director, in consideration of goods supplies to M/
s 'SNS' P. Ltd. [paras 15 and 16] [337-E-H; 338-A-B]
H 1.3 It is true that a limited company is a separate legal
ANil SACHAR & ANR. v. SHREE NATH SPINNERS 331
P. LTD. & ORS. ETC.
entity and its director.s are different legal persons. A
However, in view of the provisions of s. 139 of the Act and
the understanding which had been arrived at among the
complainants and the accused, one can safely come to
a conclusion that the cheques signed by respondent no.
3 had been given by Mis. 'ATO' Ltd. to the complainants B
in discharge of a debt or a liability, which had been
incurred by Mis 'SNS' P. Ltd. [para 17) [338-E-F]

!CDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer and Anr. 2002 (1) Suppl.
SCR 488 = 2002(6) SCC 426; K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora and
Anr. 2009(10) SCC 48; and K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan and C
Anr. 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 374 = 2001(8) SCC 458 - relied
on.

1.4 Looking to the facts of the case and law on the
subject, this Court is of the view that all the four cheques D
referred to in both the complaints are presumed to have
been given for consideration. The presumption u/s 139
of the Act has not been rebutted by the accused and,
therefore, the trial court wrongly acquitted the accused
by taking a view that there was no consideration for E
which the cheques were given by respondent no. 3 to the
complainants. The said incorrect view was wrongly
confirmed by the High Court. Thus, the accused
especially ought to have been held guilty. Therefore, the
accused in both the cases, are held guilty and convicted F
of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. The order
of acquittal is set aside. [para 19-21] [340-A-E]

2.1 While hearing the accused on the question of
sentence, as provided by s. 235(2) of the Code of
• Criminal Procedure, 1973 the records revealed that the G
accused-respondent no. 3 has died. Therefore, the appeal
as against him stands abated. [para 1 of order] [340-G-H]
2.2 Apart from the company, there is yet one more
Director of the Company accused in the case, i.e. H
·-

-
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 9 S.C.R.

A respondent no. 4. The Court heard the counsel appearing
for the parties on the question of sentence. Considering
the provisions of s.138 of the Act, imposition of fine of Rs.
10,00,000/· on the accused and payable to the
complainants as compensation would meet the ends of
B justice. The drafts amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/·, payable
to the appellants/complainants, have been handed over
to their counsel. [para 2-4 of order] [341-A·D]

Case Law Reference:

c 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 488 relied on para 10
2009(1 O) sec 48 relied on para 10
2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 374 relied on para 10
2010 (5) SCR 284 relied on para 12
D
2007 (11 ) SCR 951 relied on para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1413-1414 of 2011.
E From the Judgment & Order dated 16.12.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No.
379-MA & 381-MA of 2007.

Nidesh Gupta, Tarun Gupta, S. Janani for the Appellants.
F
Manoj Swarup, Ankit Swarup, Ashok Anand, Shivendra
Swaroop, Ajay Kumar, Devurat, Harish Pandey for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the common Judgment delivered
in Criminal Appeal Nos.379-MA of 2007 and 381-MA of 2007
. H dated 16th December, 2008 by the High Court of Punjab and
ANIL SACHAR & ANR. v. SHREE NATH SPINNERS 333
~
_)-r_,A.
P. LTD. & ORS. ETC. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
Haryana at Chandigarh, the original complainan!s have filed A
these appeals, By virtue of the aforestated judgment and order,
the High Court has confirmed the Orders dated 4th May, 2007
passed in Criminal Complaint Nos. 46 and 99 of 1999 by the
l< · Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana whereby the accused
1
in the aforestated complaints had been acquitted of the charges B
levelled against them.

3. The facts leading to the present litigation fn a nut shell
are as under:

4. On 23rd February, 1999,, Respondent no.4 - Munish c
Jain, a Director of M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. had given in all four
cheques for different amounts to Anil Sachar, partner of M/s.
• Rati Woolen Mills who are appellant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively .
'I" According to the case of the complainants, the said cheques
were given to M/s. Rati Woolen Mills, of which appellant no.1 D
is a partner, in consideration of supply of goods to M/s. Shree
Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
5. The aforestated cheques, which had been given by
Munish Jain as Director of M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd., had not
E
been honoured and due to dishonour of the said cheques, the
complainant, namely, Anil Sachar, as a partner of Mis. Rati
Woolen Mills had issued notice as required under the
'
,; provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
i
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In spite of the said notice,
the complainant was not paid the amount covered under the F
aforestated cheques and, therefore, complaints had been filed
against the present respondents.

·>....., 6. The case of the present respondents before the trial
court as well as before the High Court was that the dispute was G
of a civil nature and with an obliqu.e motive it was given a colour
of criminal litigation. The said reply had been given especially
in view of the fact that the complaint had also been filed making
out a case against the accused under the provisions of Sections
.
' 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code. H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 9 S.C.R.
.
... \.

A 7. The case of the complainants was that M/s. A.T.
Overseas Ltd. is a sister concern of Mis. Shree Nath Spinners
Pvt. Ltd. and the aforestated cheques were given by Munish
Jain towards dues of M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. as a
Director of M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. After considering the
B evidence adduced and the arguments made before the trial
court, the trial court acquitted the accused for the reason that
the goods had been supplied by the complainants to M/s. Shree
Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. and the cheques had not been given
by M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. but they had been given
c by M/s. AT. Overseas Ltd. As M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt.
Ltd. and M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. are two different legal entities
and as there was nothing on record to show that the cheques
were given by M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. in consideration of goods
supplied by the complainants to Mis. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. •
Ltd., the conclusion was that there was no liability of M/s. A.T. 1
D
Overseas Ltd. and, therefore, dishonour of the aforestated
cheques would not make signatory of the cheques from the
account of Mis. A.T. Overseas Ltd. liable under the provisions
of the Act.
E 8. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, dated 4th May, 2007,
criminal appeals were filed before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh, but the said appeals have been
dismissed and, therefore, the original complainants have ..
F approached this Court by way of these appeals.
9. It may be noted here that during the pendency of the
proceedings, Mohinder Jain, accused/respondent no.3 expired
and, therefore, deleted from the array of parties.
G 10. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing '-"'
for the complainants mainly submitted that the learned Judicial
Magistrate as well as the High Court committed an error by
acquitting the accused simply because the goods had been
supplied to Mis. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. whereas the
H cheques were given by M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. He submitted
ANIL SACHAR & ANR. v. SHREE NATH SPINNERS 335
4->
P. LTD. & ORS. ETC. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
that both the concerns, referred to hereinabove, are sister A
concerns having common Directors and, therefore, the courts
below ought to have lifted the corporate veil so as to find out
the realities. He also submitted that Munish Jain, who had
. signed the aforesaid cheques was Director in both the sister
f concerns viz. M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. and Mis. AT. B
Overseas Ltd. Moreover, he submitted that once the cheques
had been issued by the accused, as per provisions of Section
139 of the Act, burden was on the accused to show that there
was no consideration. So as to substantiate his aforestated
submission, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgments c
delivered by this Court in /COS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer and Anr.
[2002(6) SCC 426], K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora and Anr.,
[2009(10) SCC 48] and K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan and Anr.
• r2001 (8) sec 458J. ·
.,.
11. For the aforestated reasons, the learned counsel D
strenuously submitted that the High Court had erred in
confirming the orders of acquittal because upon lifting the
corporate veil, the correct position could have been revealed
and the correct position according to the learned counsel was
that the cheques had been given by a sister concern, namely, E
M/s. AT. Overseas Ltd. in consideration of the goods supplied
to Mis Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. The learned counsel also
drew our attention to the fact that there were several inter se
~
J.
transactions between the above-named two sister concerns
and, therefore, the courts below ought to have believed that the F
payment had been made by one company for another company
and the courts below ought to have believed that there was a
consideration behind issuance of the aforestated two cheques.
He also draw our attention to the relevant evidence which was
_, , adduced by the complainants to establish the aforestated facts. G
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents supported the reasons recorded by the courts
below while acquitting the accused. He mainly submitted that
the cheques had been issued by Mis. A.T. Overseas Ltd. to H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

...... :..,
A whom no goods had been supplied by the complainants and,
therefore, there was no consideration. In absence of any
consideration, according to the learned counsel, the accused
could not have been held guilty and, therefore, the courts below
rightly acquitted the respondents. The learned counsel relied
f
B upon the judgments delivered in lndowind Energy Ltd. v.
Wescare (India) Ltd. and Anr. [2010(5) SCC 306] and in Rahul
Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals and Anr. [2008(2)
sec 321]. According to him, even if two companies are having
common Directors, both companies would remain different
c legal entities and, therefore, the submission made on behalf of
the appellants that both the companies are sister concerns and,
therefore, one company should be made liable for the dues of
another company cannot be sustained. He further submitted
that there was nothing to substantiate the submission that M/s.
A.T. Overseas Ltd. had made payment in consideration of ..,
D
goods supplied to M/s. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. He,
therefore, submitted that the appeals be dismissed.

13. Upon hearing the learned C( •unsel appearing for the
parties and upon perusal of the record pertaining to the cases
E and the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court
confirming the order passed by the trial court and upon
considering the judgments cited by the learned counsel, we are
of the view that the decision rendered by the courts below
cannot be sustained.
;
F
14. Upon perusal of the record, we find that the
complainants had established before the trial court that there
was an understanding among the complainants and the
accused that in consideration of supply of goods to M/s. Shree
Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Mis. A.T. Overseas Ltd. was to make
G '....,, ~

the payment. The aforestated understanding was on account
of the fact that directors in both the aforestated companies were
common and the aforestated companies were sister concerns.
In the circumstances, it can be very well said and it has been
proved that in consideration of supply of goods to M/s. Shree
H
- _,i..k
ANIL SACHAR & ANR. v. SHREE NATH SPINNERS 337
P. LTD. & ORS. ETC. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd., M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. had made the
payment. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, the trial court
A

was not right when it came to the conclusion that there was no
reason for M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. to give the cheques to the
complainants. The aforestated facts are very well reflected in
" 1·
the statement made in the complaint and in the evidence by B
the complainant which have not been controverted. Paras 2 and
3 of the complaint are reproduced herein below:

"2. That the accused had business dealings with the
complainant and supply of the goods which duly supplied
by my client vide separate bills from time to time which
c
was duly acknowledged by the accused no. 5 Varun Jain
director of the accused no. 1.

... 3. That in order to discharge the liability of making the
payment, the accused issued following two cheques in D
favour of the complainant through their sister concern MIS
A.T. Overseas Ltd. i.e. Accused No. 1 and the cheques
were duly signed by Mr. Munish Jain one of its directors"

15. The trial court materially erred while coming to a E
conclusion that in criminal law no presumption can be raised
with regard to consideration as no goods had been supplied
by the complainants to M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd .. The trial court
~
ought to have considered provisions of Section 139 of the Act,
J.
which reads as under:-
F
"139. Presumption in favour of holder - It shall be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder
of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to
in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any
. -~ G
debt or other liability."
16. According to the provisions of the aforestated section,
there is a presumption with regard to consideration when a
cheque has been paid by the drawer of the cheque. In the
instant case, M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. paid the cheque which
H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A had been duly signed by one of its Directors, namely, Munish
Jain. Munish Jain is also a Director in Mis. Shree Nath
... 1..
-
Spinners Pvt. Ltd .. As stated hereinabove, both are sister
concerns having common Directors. Extracts of books of
accounts had been produced before the trial court so as to ~

B show that both the companies were having several transactions
and the companies used to pay on behalf of each other to other
parties or their creditors. The above fact strengthens the
presumption to the effect that M/s. A.T. Overseas Ltd. had paid
the cheques to the complainants, which had been signed by
c Munish Jain, in consideration of goods supplies to M/s Shree L..;

Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Of course, the presumption referred to
in Section 139 is rebuttable. In the instant case, no effort was
made by Munish Jain or any of the Directors of M/s. A.T.
Overseas Ltd. for rebuttal of the aforestated presumption and,
therefore, the presumption must go in favour of the holder of
D
the cheques. Unfortunately, the trial court did not consider the
above facts and came to the conclusion that there was no
consideration for the cheques which had been given by Mis.
A.T. Overseas Ltd. to the complainams.
E 17. It is true that a limited company is a separate legal
entity and its directors are different legal persons. In spite of
the aforestated legal position, in view of the provisions of
Section 139 of the Act and the understanding which had been
arrived at among the complainants and the accused, one can ,
F safely come to a conclusion that the cheques signed by Munish
Jain had been given by Mis. A.T. Overseas ltd. to the
complainants in discharge of a debt or a liability, which had
been incurred by Mis Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
18. We may also refer to the judgment delivered by this .
G '""'
Court in the case of /CDS Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment
this Court has referred to the nature of liability which is incurred
by the one who is a drawer of the cheque. If the cheque is given
towards any liability or debt which might have been incurred
even by someone else, the person who is a drawer of the
H
ANIL SACHAR & ANR. v. SHREE NATH SPINNERS 339
P. LTD. & ORS. ETC. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
-- _Jo_,.
cheque can be made liable under Section 138 of the Act. The A
relevant observation made in the aforestated judgment is as
under:

"The words "any cheque" and "other liability" occurring in
Section 138 are the two key expressions which stand as
~
B
1 clarifying the legislative intent so as to bring the factual
context within the ambit of the provisions of the statute.
These expressions leave no manner of doubt that for
whatever reason it may be, the liability under Section 138
cannot be avoided in the event the cheque stands returned
by the banker unpaid. Any contra-:.interpretation would c
defeat the intent of the legislature. The High Court got
carried away by the ii::sue of guarantee and guarantor's
liability and thus has overlooked the true intent and purport
of Section 138 of the Act.
~ D

The language, however, has been rather specific as regard
the intent of the legislature. The commencement of the
section stands with the words "where any cheque". The
E
above noted three words are of extreme significance, in
particular, by reason of the user of the word "any" - the first
three words suggest that in fact for whatever reason if a
cheque is drawn on an account maintained by him with a
~
banker in favour of another person for the discharge of any
)
debt or other liability, the highlighted words if read with the F
first three words at the commencement of Section 138,
leave no manner of doubt that for whatever reason it may
be, the liability under this provision cannot be avoided in
the event the same stands returned by the banker unpaid.
The legislature has been careful enough to record not only G
~
discharge in whole or in part of any debt but the same
includes other liability as well. This aspect of the matter has
not been appreciated by the High Court, neither been dealt
with or even referred to in the impugned judgment."
H
•'
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

... ~.

A 19. Looking to the facts of the case and law on the subject,
we are of the view that all the four cheques referred to in both
the complaints are presumed to have been given for
consideration. The presumption under Section 139 of the Act
has not been rebutted by the accused and, therefore, we are
J
B of the view that the trial court wrongly acquitted the accused
by taking a view that there was no r:onsideration for which the
cheques were given by Munish Jain to the complainants. The
aforesaid incorrect view was wrongly confirmed by the High
Court. We, therefore, set aside the acquittal order and convict
c accused Munish Jain under Section 138 of the Act.
20. In view of the aforestated facts and legal position, in
our opinion, the accused ought to have been held guilty,
especially accused no. 4, Munish Jain who had signed all the ,
cheques for Mis A.T. Overseas Ltd. We, therefore, hold Munish •
D Jain, accused no. 4 and respondent no. 4 herein, in both the
cases guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

21. Accused Munish Jain was acquitted by the trial court
and the High Court has confirmed the acquittal, which is being
E set aside by this Court by allowing these appeals. In the
· circumstances, as per the provisions of Section 235(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, this Court will have to give an
opportunity of being heard to him on the question of sentence.
We, therefore, adjourn the case to 2-8-2011 for hearing the
F accused Manish Jain on the question of sentence. If on that day
he fails to appear before this Court, we shall hear his counsel
on the question of sentence.

ORDER
G 1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties on the question of sentence. Having gone through the
records, we find that Mr. Munish Jain, against whom the notice
was issued on the question of sentence had died. Accordingly,
so far he is concerned, the matter stands abated.
H
ANIL SACHAR & ANR. v. SHREE NATH SPINNERS 341
P. LTD. & ORS. ETC .
..<.~

2. There is yet one more accused in the case, apart from A
the company, who was also impleaded as a party in the present
proceedings. The said Director of the company is Mr. Varun
Jain.
}
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
' parties on the question of sentence. Considering the provisions
8
of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, we consider
that imposition of fine of an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees
ten lacs only) would meet the ends of justice in the present case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we,
therefore, impose a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs c
only) on the respondent payable to the appellants/complainants
by way of compensation.

.. 4. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the respondent
has handed over drafts amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- payable D
to the appellants/complainants, to the counsel appearing for the
appellants/complainants, who receives the said amount which
is imposed as fine and payable to the appellants. Fine having
been paid and received the litigation to an end.
E
5. In that view of the matter, nothing further survives in these
appeals, which stand disposed of.

R.P. Appeals disposed of.
<
J