9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the present respondent arraigning him as accused, under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Rs. N.I.Act'). 2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that the complainant being the dealer in SWR Systems, PVC Agri pipes, Sanitary wares etc., at the request of the accused, who is the Proprietor of one M/s.Subramanya Agencies, had supplied goods to him worth Rs. 3,75,224/- on credit under the credit invoices. After deducting the payment made by the accused, on 2.8.2006 still he was due to the complainant a sum of Rs. 79,566/-. Towards dischargal of a portion of the said outstandin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s preferred this appeal. 5. The respondent/accused is being represented by his learned counsel. 6. The trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. 9. After hearing, the points that arise for my consideration are : "1) Whether the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act as alleged in the complaint? 2) Whether the judgment under appeal deserves an interference at the hands of this Court? 10. It is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged outstanding balance which is said to be due from the accused. The witness was subjected to cross examination from the accused' side, wherein the denial suggestions made by the accused were not admitted as true by the witness. In the light of the above, it was the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the business relationship between the complainant and the accused is not disputed, so also, the issuance of cheques at Exs.P-3 and P-4. The dishonour of the cheques for the reason of closure of the drawer's account is also an admitted fact. Stating so, the learned counsel submits that despite all these favourable points in his support, which prove his case, still, the Trial Court, relying upon the judgment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Directors of the Company, it was not specifically contended that PW-1 had no authority to lead evidence. On the other hand, the Board resolution which is at Ex.P-1 specifically shows that, the Company in its Board resolution dated 20-10-2006 has authorised inter alia PW-1 - Sri. T.K. Umapathy its Sales Manager to sign the papers pertaining to the case, execute affidavit to adduce evidence, etc. Thus, the said resolution since has authorised PW-1 to represent the Company and to give evidence in the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that PW-1 had no authority to represent the Company, is not acceptable. 13. PW-1 has given in his evidence a detailed account of the supplies made to the accused' e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso convincingly explained by the complainant. The evidence of PW-1 about the presentation of those two cheques for realisation through his bankers and the dishounour of those two cheques by the banker as per its endorsements at Exs.P-5 and P-6 and the issuance of the legal notice at Ex.P-7 have all remained undisputed in the evidence of PW-1. Even though the complainant in its complaint has stated that the reason for dishonour of those two cheques was insufficiency of funds, however, in his evidence, he has given a clarification that both the cheques were dishonoured for the reason of closure of the account of the drawer. However, inadvertently and due to typographical error, in the complaint, the reason was shown as 'insufficiency of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, comes into operation. 17. In the instant case, apart from the legal presumption as per Section 139 of the N.I. Act coming into operation, as observed above, the complainant through oral and documentary evidence has also shown that the supplies of goods to the accused were made and towards the same, the accused was in arrears of payment of money, towards which, he had issued the cheques at Exs.P-3 and P-4. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that PW-1 had no authority to lead evidence and the complainant failed to establish the existence of a legally recoverable debt proves to be an erroneous finding. 18. On the other hand, as observed above, the complainant has proved that the accused towards legally enforceable debt, had issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
