Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1467 (KER)

P. S. Sajimon v. Regency Ceramics Limited

2017-12-01

ALEXANDER THOMAS

body2017
ORDER : Alexander Thomas, J. 1. These 12 Revision Petitions arise out of the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused in 12 separate complaints which were jointly tried. The parties in the 12 complaints are the same. The trial court, by the common judgment rendered on 24.03.2017, has convicted the petitioner in all the 12 complaints and has sentenced him to undergo three months' simple imprisonment in each of the cases and has ordered to pay fine of an amount which is equal to the dishonoured cheque amounts covered in each of these complaints, with a default sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. The petitioner had preferred 12 separate criminal appeals before the appellate Sessions Court concerned. The appellate court, has per the common judgment rendered on 16.05.2008, has confirmed the conviction imposed on the petitioner in all the 12 complaints, but has reduced the substantive sentence to one month's simple imprisonment in each of the cases and has confirmed the direction to pay fine amount but the default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment imposed by the trial court has been enhanced to three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by this verdict of the court below, the petitioner has preferred these 12 separate Revision Petitions which had been heard together. 3. The details of these 12 Revision Petitions including the cheque numbers and dates, cheque amounts, statutory demand notice etc are given in a tabulated manner as noted below : Serial No. Case Nos. Cheque Nos. Exhibit Nos. Cheque amount Rs. Total Rs. Notice Nos. 1. S.T.No. 221/2004 076506 P-1 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-9 Crl. Appeal No. 293/2007 076504 P-2 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2761/2008 076507 P-3 1,00,000/- 2. S.T.No.222/2004 076505 P-12 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-27 Crl. Appeal No.294/2007 076501 P-13 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2795/2008 076502 P-14 1,00,000/- 3. S.T.No. 223/2004 076503 P-22 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-30 Crl. Appeal No. 295/2007 076508 P-23 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2783/2008 076529 P-24 1,00,000/- 4. S.T.No. 224/2004 076528 P-31 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-39 Crl. Appeal No. 296/2007 076527 P-32 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2787/2008 076526 P-33 1,00,000/- 5. S.T.No. 225/2004 076524 P-40 1,00,000/- 2,50,000 P-47 Crl. Appeal No. 297/2007 076525 P-41 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2801/2008 076531 P-42 50,000 6. S.T.No. 226/2004 076523 P-48 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-56 Crl. Appeal No. 298/2007 076522 P-49 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2782/2008 076521 P-50 1,00,000/- 7. S.T.No. 227/2004 076517 P-57 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-64 Crl. S.T.No. 225/2004 076524 P-40 1,00,000/- 2,50,000 P-47 Crl. Appeal No. 297/2007 076525 P-41 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2801/2008 076531 P-42 50,000 6. S.T.No. 226/2004 076523 P-48 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-56 Crl. Appeal No. 298/2007 076522 P-49 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2782/2008 076521 P-50 1,00,000/- 7. S.T.No. 227/2004 076517 P-57 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-64 Crl. Appeal No.299/2007 076518 P-58 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2788/2008 076519 P-59 1,00,000/- 8. S.T.No. 228/2004 076520 P-65 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-73 Crl. Appeal No. 300/2007 076515 P-66 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2781/2008 076516 P-67 1,00,000/- 9. S.T.No. 229/2004 076537 P-74 37,425/- 2,37,425/- P-82 Crl. Appeal No. 301/2007 076513 P-75 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2808/2008 070614 P-76 1,00,000/- 10 S.T.No. 230/2004 076511 P-83 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-92 Crl. Appeal No. 302/2007 076512 P-84 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2784/2008 076572 P-85 1,00,000/- 11. S.T.No. 231/2004 076571 P-93 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-102 Crl. Appeal No. 303/2007 076575 P-94 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2809/2008 076576 P-95 1,00,000/- 12. S.T.No. 232/2004 076573 P-103 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- P-111 Crl. Appeal No. 304/2007 076524 P-104 1,00,000/- Crl.R.P. No. 2802/2008 076577 P-105 1,00,000/- Total 34,87,425 4. The 12 statutory demand notices sent in each of these complaints are purported to be under the proviso(b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are Exts. P9, P21, P30, P39, P47, P56, P64, P73, P82, P92, P102 and P111. All these notices are dated 25.08.2004. Though 12 notices have been sent separately, all of them are identically worded and one such notice as per Ext. P21 reads as follows : "REF: RCL:CHN:No:187/2004-2005 date: 25.08.2004 REGISTERED A/D M/s. Aiswarya Agencies, Kuruvilangad, Near Police Station, Kottayam Dear Sir, Your following cheques issued in our favour from Syndicate Bank, Kuruvilangad branch have been returned due to payment stopped by the drawer. CH. P21 reads as follows : "REF: RCL:CHN:No:187/2004-2005 date: 25.08.2004 REGISTERED A/D M/s. Aiswarya Agencies, Kuruvilangad, Near Police Station, Kottayam Dear Sir, Your following cheques issued in our favour from Syndicate Bank, Kuruvilangad branch have been returned due to payment stopped by the drawer. CH. No. DATE AMOUNT BANK CHARGES TOTAL 76577 08/08/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76573 04/08/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76574 07/08/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76576 07/08/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76575 06/08/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76571 02/08/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76572 03/08/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76372 23/06/04 60,000 500 60500 76381 23/06/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76383 25/06/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76506 30/06/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76504 30/06/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76507 29/06/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76524 24/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76525 24/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76527 23/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76526 23/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76529 20/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76528 21/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76511 31/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76512 31/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76513 30/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76514 30/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76515 29/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76516 29/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76532 29/07/04 37425 500 37925 76517 28/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76518 28/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76519 28/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76521 27/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76520 27/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76523 26/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76522 26/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76531 24/07/04 50,000 500 50500 76502 12/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76508 19/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76503 19/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76501 06/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 76505 01/07/04 1,00,000 500 100500 TOTAL 3747425 19500 3766925 It is a matter of regret that you are resorting to bouncing of cheques even after availing sufficient time of credit. Please ensure DDs are paid against bounced cheques within fifteen days from the receipt of this letter. In case we do not receive the DD, we will be compelled to pursue action under Negotiable Instrument Act. We are pained to inform you that further supplies can be availed only against advance demand draft or cheque. Thanking you, Yours faithfully for REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED Sd/- PHILIP KURUVILLA Sr. Regional Manager, Cochin." 5. Heard Sri. K. Jagadeesh Chandran Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused), Sri. Abraham Thomas Puthooran, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent (complainant) and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent (State). 6. Thanking you, Yours faithfully for REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED Sd/- PHILIP KURUVILLA Sr. Regional Manager, Cochin." 5. Heard Sri. K. Jagadeesh Chandran Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused), Sri. Abraham Thomas Puthooran, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent (complainant) and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent (State). 6. After hearing the parties in extenso, this court is of the considered view that both the courts below have omitted to consider the vital and crucial aspects of the matter in favour of the petitioner and this Court finds that the impugned judgments are vitiated by grave illegalities and perversity. The accused is entitled for the benefit of acquittal in view of the following reasons: (A) A perusal of the said statutory demand notices would disclose that there are no clear and precise averments therein that the said cheques have been issued in discharge of liability owed by the drawer to the complainant. More crucially, a bare perusal of the said notices would disclose that the said notices are addressed to "M/s. Aiswarya Agencies, Kuruvilangad, Near Police Station, Kottayam". There are three dishonoured cheques involved in each of the 12 complaints. A bare perusal of all the 36 dishonoured cheques involved in these cases would disclose that the drawer of the cheques is "M/s. Aiswarya Traders, through its partner". It is also relevant to note that the said demand notices have not been addressed to any particular individual and the name of the present accused, Sri. P.S. Sajimon, has not been even remotely indicated in those notices. In the complaints, the sole accused arrayed is "Sri. Saji, Proprietor, M/s. Aiswarya Traders, Near Police Station, Kuruvilangad - 686 633, Kottayam". It is also averred in the complaints that the accused Saji happens to be the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Traders and M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. The evidence also show that the vast majority of the alleged transactions which led to the alleged liability are in between the complainant and M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. Apart from the oral assertions of PW 1 and PW 2, no convincing material evidence have been let in before the court below to conclusively show that Sri. P.S. Sajimon @ Saji is the Proprietor of not only M/s. Aiswarya Traders but also that of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. Apart from the oral assertions of PW 1 and PW 2, no convincing material evidence have been let in before the court below to conclusively show that Sri. P.S. Sajimon @ Saji is the Proprietor of not only M/s. Aiswarya Traders but also that of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. There are no averments anywhere in the complaints that M/s. Aiswarya Traders had voluntarily taken over the liability of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies and that cheques have been issued by the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Traders on that basis. No evidence in that regard has also been adduced by the complainant. Whereas the accused has asserted that he has nothing to do with M/s. Aiswarya Agencies to whom the demand notices have been sent and that M/s. Aiswarya Agencies is a separate proprietary concern which is run by Smt. Aiby Sasi, who happens to be his sister. Further, the defence has also adduced evidence through DW1, who is an employee of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies for the relevant period from July 2004 to June 2005. All the 36 dishonoured cheques involved in this case are said to have been issued in June, July and August, 2008. DW1 would categorically depose before the court below that the proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies is Smt. Aiby Sasi who happens to be the sister of the present accused Sri. P.S. Sajimon and that M/s. Aiswarya Agencies has nothing to do with M/s. Aiswarya Traders. Further, it is stated that to a specific suggestion made by the complainant, the DW1 has categorically deposed that the accused Sajimon was not in any manner having any responsibilities of supervision over M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. PW 4, the Bank Officer of the Syndicate Bank (from whose accounts, the dishonoured cheques have been issued) has also deposed that the said Bank is having the account only pertaining to M/s. Aiswarya Traders and that the said Bank is not having any account pertaining to M/s. Aiswarya Agencies and that they are not aware about the details of the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. No evidence whatsoever has been let in by the complainant either from the Sales Tax Registration Authorities or from any other Banks to show that the accused Sri. P.S. Sajimon, the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Traders happens to be the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies as well. No evidence whatsoever has been let in by the complainant either from the Sales Tax Registration Authorities or from any other Banks to show that the accused Sri. P.S. Sajimon, the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Traders happens to be the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies as well. In the light of these aspects it is only to be held that the statutory demand notices envisaged under Section 138 Proviso (b) of the NI Act, in the instant case, have been issued not to the drawer of the cheques, (M/s. Aiswarya Traders), but to a different proprietary concern. Since this is the indisputable position in this regard it is only to be held that the complaint itself is not maintainable as the statutory demand notices have not been issued to the drawer of the dishonoured cheques in question. Both the courts below have egregiously erred in omitting to take note of this crucial and relevant aspect of the matter and therefore the conviction imposed on the petitioner is liable to be set aside on this sole ground and it is accordingly so ordered. (B) The evidence of PW 4, the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, from whose account the cheques have been drawn would clearly depose that they are having an account pertaining to only M/s. Aiswarya Traders and that the said Bank is not having any account of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies and that they are unaware about the details of the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. As stated herein above, the defence has adduced evidence through D.W-1, who is an employee of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies for the period from July 2004 to June 2005. D.W-1 would depose that the proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies is Smt. Aiby Sasi, who happens to be the sister of the present accused and that M/s. Aiswarya Agencies has nothing to do with M/s. Aiswarya Traders. To a specific suggestion made by the complainant, D.W-1 has stated that the accused Sajimon was not in any manner having any responsibilities of supervision over M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. P.W-4, (Bank Officer of the drawee Syndicate Bank) has also deposed that the said Bank is having the account of only pertaining to M/s. Aiswarya Traders and that the said Bank is not having any account pertaining to M/s. Aiswarya Agencies and that they are not aware about the details of the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. P.W-4, (Bank Officer of the drawee Syndicate Bank) has also deposed that the said Bank is having the account of only pertaining to M/s. Aiswarya Traders and that the said Bank is not having any account pertaining to M/s. Aiswarya Agencies and that they are not aware about the details of the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. These evidence of D.W-1 and P.W-4 are not in any manner seriously challenged by the complainant. So it is only to be held that the complainant has accepted the said evidence of DW-1 and P.W-4. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the complainant could draw the benefit of statutory presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act in this case, still it is only to be held that the abovesaid aspects stated herein above, more particularly, the evidences of D.W-1 and P.W-4 have seriously rebutted the statutory presumption in this case. Due to the rebuttal of the statutory presumption, the said presumption has disappeared and so it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to have adduced evidence based on proof beyond reasonable doubt to prove his case. Such quality evidence is fully lacking in the facts of this case and the complainant has not cared to let in any evidence of such quality. Though PW 1 has earlier asserted that the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Traders and the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies is one and the same, there is no convincing and reliable evidence before the court below to arrive at any such fact finding. Therefore, the complainant was obliged to adduce some convincing and independent evidence from that of Sales Tax Authorities or from the Banks concerned to show that the accused-Sajimon, who happens to be the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Traders is also the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. No such evidence has been let in and therefore it is not safe and proper to rely only on the oral assertions of PW 1(complainant) and PW 2 (employee of the complainant) to come to any finding on the issue as to who is the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. No such evidence has been let in and therefore it is not safe and proper to rely only on the oral assertions of PW 1(complainant) and PW 2 (employee of the complainant) to come to any finding on the issue as to who is the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. That apart, no case has been set up either in the complaint or in the evidence of the complainant that the accused is the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Traders who had voluntarily taken over the liability of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies which have been incurred by the latter to the complainant and that the cheques in question have been issued by the accused on that basis. Therefore, it is not right or proper to the courts below to have relied on oral assertions of PW 1 and PW 2 so as to convict the petitioner. This should be appreciated in the context of the fact that even as per the documents produced by the complainant, the transactions were mainly between the complainant and M/s. Aiswarya Agencies and even admittedly the statutory demand notices have been issued to M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. (C). The complainant would assert that the signature in the postal acknowledgment cards pertaining to the 12 statutory demand notices is the same as the signature in the dishonoured cheques. During the cross examination of PW 1 and PW 2, the accused has specifically denied the said aspect and has asserted that the signature in the acknowledgment cards are not pertaining to him. He had also separately filed an application to send those acknowledgment cards to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with his admitted signature to ascertain whether the signature in the acknowledgment cards are the same that of the signature in the dishonoured cheques. The said application filed by the accused has been rejected by the trial court as per order dated 21.02.2007 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 246/2007 in ST No. 221/2004. On the other hand, it appears that the trial court has unilaterally proceeded to compare the signatures in the acknowledgment cards with that of the signatures in the dishonoured cheques and has come to the conclusion that the signatures tally each other. M.P. No. 246/2007 in ST No. 221/2004. On the other hand, it appears that the trial court has unilaterally proceeded to compare the signatures in the acknowledgment cards with that of the signatures in the dishonoured cheques and has come to the conclusion that the signatures tally each other. The Apex Court in the decision reported in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar [ (2008) 5 SCC 633 ] has held as to what should be the nature of the defence evidence is not a matter, which should only left to the discretion of the trial court and that it is the accused who knows how to prove his defence and that the court being the master of the proceedings must determine as to whether the application filed by the accused in terms of Section 243(2) of the Cr.P.C. is bona fide or not or whether thereby he intends to bring on record a relevant material. But, ordinarily an accused should be allowed to approach the court for obtaining its assistance with regard to adducing a defence evidence and if permitted to do so, steps should be taken within a limited time as the accused should not be allowed to unnecessarily protract the trial. In the said decision the Apex Court held that the impugned order of the trial court rejecting the request of the accused for sending the dishonoured cheques to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert handwriting analysis will seriously prejudice to the accused. Similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam [ (2007) 2 SCC 258 ]. The Apex Court in the celebrated case of State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram [ AIR 1979 SC 14 ] has held categorically in paragraph 29 therein that although there is no legal bar to the trial Judge in using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against an accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It is therefore not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. It will be profitable to refer paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Pali Ram's case (supra) which read as follows : "28. In addition to S. 73, there are two other provisions resting on the same principle, namely, S. 165 Evidence Act and S. 540 Cr.P.C, 1898, which between them invest the Court with a wide discretion to call and examine any one as a witness, if it is bona fide of the opinion that his examination is necessary for a just decision of the case. In passing the order which he did, the Magistrate was acting well within the bounds of this principle. 29. The matter can be viewed from another angle also. Although there is no legal bar to the trial Judge in using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It is therefore not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert." In the light of the aforesaid legal principles laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid two decisions, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order of the trial court rejecting the request of the accused for sending the acknowledgment cards along with the specimen signatures of the accused to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion regarding the signature in the acknowledgment cards, has caused serious prejudice to the accused and denial of the right to adduce defence evidence in that regard has vitiated the trial in the facts and circumstances of this case. This should also be appreciated in the context of the factual aspect that the specific defence of the accused was to the effect that his blank signed cheques which were given to the complainant company, have been misused in the present case and that the entire transactions which led to the alleged liability, are that of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies which is a separate proprietary concern in which he has nothing to do, even though the proprietor of the latter concern is his sister. Even the evidence of the complainant would show that the transactions which led to the liability in question in the instant case was between the complainant and the Proprietor of M/s. Aiswarya Agencies. Therefore, the above said issue as to whether the signature in the acknowledgment cards pertain to the accused or not is a vital and crucial issue and the denial of the request of the accused to send the material for expert opinion has caused serious prejudice to him. (D) It is to be noted that a mere perusal of the complaints in case would disclose that none of the crucial and relevant material particulars about the alleged transactions between the parties, which led to the alleged liability in question, has been stated in the complaints, statutory demand notices and in the proof affidavit. Except bald averment that the accused had issued 36 cheques in question, there are no averments in the complaints as to when the said cheques were allegedly issued and handed over by the accused to the complainant. The Apex Court in the decision in Vijay v. Laxman & Anr. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86 : 2013 (2) KLT 157 (SC) has dealt with the necessity to disclose all such relevant and crucial material particulars about the transactions in a complaint alleging offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. Placing reliance on the abovesaid decision of the Apex Court in Vijay v. Laxman & Anr. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86 : 2013 (2) KLT 157 (SC) has dealt with the necessity to disclose all such relevant and crucial material particulars about the transactions in a complaint alleging offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. Placing reliance on the abovesaid decision of the Apex Court in Vijay v. Laxman & Anr. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86 , this Court in the decision in K.K. Divakaran v. State of Kerala, reported in 2016 (4) KLT 233 : 2016 (4) KHC 901 , has held that in a criminal trial, the accused should be necessarily informed before the trial, not only of the nature of the offence but also the particulars of the transactions, which are necessary for him to effectively rebut and meet the case against him. But that unscrupulous complainants refuse to do so with the ulterior objective of denying the accused a fair trial, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That an accused in a complaint case filed under Sec. 142 of the Act also is entitled to know before the trial, the particulars of the accusations against him and that suppression of such crucial particulars in the complaint alone is sufficient to order his acquittal. It will be profitable to refer to paras 18 and 20 of the abovesaid decision in K.K. Divakaran's case supra, which read as follows (see KLT report): "18. Before she filed the complaint the second respondent sent Ext. P4 statutory notice to the revision petitioner informing him about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the amount covered by it. Neither the nature, nor the date of the transaction between the parties nor the date of issuance of the cheque was disclosed in it. There was only a bald statement that the revision petitioner issued a cheque bearing the date 11.1.1999 for Rs. 2,55,000/- in discharge of a debt. There is no explanation why these material facts were not disclosed in the statutory notice. Suppression of material facts relating to the alleged transaction in the notice issued before filing the suit or the complaint is an artifice used by certain litigants, the intention of which is very clear. They want to develop a story after knowing the defence that may be set up by the opposite party. Suppression of material facts relating to the alleged transaction in the notice issued before filing the suit or the complaint is an artifice used by certain litigants, the intention of which is very clear. They want to develop a story after knowing the defence that may be set up by the opposite party. The doors of the court should be closed to such fortune seekers. xxx xxx xxx 20. In a criminal case the accused should be informed before the trial not only of the nature of the offence but also the particulars of the transaction which are necessary for him to effectively meet the case against him. But unscrupulous complainants refuse to do so with the object of denying the accused a fair trial, which is a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. An accused in a complaint case filed under Section 142 of the Act also is entitled to know before the trial the particulars of the accusation against him. Suppression of these particulars in the complaint alone is sufficient to order his acquittal." In the light of these aspects, the accused is entitled for the benefit of acquittal due to suppression of such crucial material particulars and in view of the abovesaid dictum laid down by the decisions as in Vijay v. Laxman & Anr. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86 , K.K. Divakaran v. State of Kerala reported in 2016 (4) KLT 233 : 2016 (4) KHC 901 , etc. 7. For all these reasons, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned conviction and sentence imposed in this case is legally unsustainable and untenable. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of the trial court and the appellate court in these 12 matters will stand set aside. The accused will stand acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in all these 12 complaints and he is set at liberty. The Registry will return the LCR to the trial court along with a copy of this order for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the Crl.R.Ps. stand finally disposed of.