Prachi Sales Dwara Propriter Priyank Tiwari vs. Maa Rewa Hospital And Research Center

Held

The High Court held that the trial court committed an error by failing to consider the documentary evidence on record, specifically the GST invoices, account statements, and registration certificates, which established Priyank Tiwari as the proprietor of Prachi Sales. The Court noted that no specific objection was raised by the respondents regarding the appellant's proprietorship during the proceedings, nor was this issue disputed in their written arguments. The reliance on Milind Shripad Chandurkar was deemed misplaced in light of the evidence. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision, taking into account all the material placed on record by both parties. The issue of whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt or liability was implicitly left to be decided afresh by the trial court.

Facts

The appellant, Prachi Sales (represented by Proprietor Priyank Tiwari), filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Maa Rewa Hospital and Research Center and others. The complaint alleged dishonor of four cheques, each for Rs. 50,000/-, issued in consideration for surgical items supplied. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the appellant failed to establish Priyank Tiwari's proprietorship of Prachi Sales, relying on Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. Khan. The appellant argued that their proprietorship was stated in the complaint and examination-in-chief, and various documents, including GST invoices and account statements, were produced in response to a Section 91 Cr.P.C. application, clearly showing Priyank Tiwari as the proprietor, without objection from the respondents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by holding that the complainant failed to establish the proprietorship of the complainant firm, despite documentary evidence on record? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and principles of evidence). Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that the trial court failed to apply its mind, as the proprietorship was clearly stated in the complaint and examination-in-chief. Furthermore, documents including GST invoices, account statements, and registration certificates, produced in response to a Section 91 Cr.P.C. application, unequivocally identified Priyank Tiwari as the proprietor. No objection was raised by the respondents regarding this proprietorship at any stage. The reliance on Milind Shripad Chandurkar was misplaced given the available documentary evidence. Revenue's arguments: The respondent argued that the trial court rightly passed the judgment, acquitting them as the complainant failed to establish that the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt or liability. They contended that no interference was warranted.