9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er merger would be entitled to all the rights and liabilities of the merged Company and subject to the terms of the merger. Thus, when the previous Company which had granted loan to the accused is shown to have been merged, it cannot be said that the present complainant-Company does not have locus standi to file the complaint, so also, its Power of Attorney Sri. V. Jansi Rao. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner on the said point is not acceptable. The last point of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice issued after dishonour of the cheques since being addressed to the accused in his personal name, but, not to the proprietorship concern, is an invalid notice, is also not acceptable, for the reason that, admittedly the accused is the Proprietor of his concern M/s. Vertical Network Communications - A proprietorship concern since being not an independent legal entity, it can be sued in the name of the Proprietor. Since both the trial Court and the Session Judge's Court after appreciating the materials placed before them, including oral and documentary evidence, have rightly concluded holding the accused guilty of the offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked. 5. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 24.08.2012, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him accordingly. 6. Challenging the said order, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 577/2012, before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (Sessions)-XI, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Sessions Judge's Court), which by its judgment dated 25.03.2013, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. It is against these judgments of conviction, the accused has preferred this appeal. 7. The respondent is being represented by its learned counsel. 8. Records from the trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court pertaining to the matter were called for and the same are placed before the Court. 9. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 10. The only point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned judgments suffer from perversity, illegality, impropriety warranti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concern of the accused at Ex. P-12, a copy of telephone bill at Ex. P-13, VAT Certificate of the proprietorship concern of the accused and the Income-tax return of the accused for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 at Exs. P-14 and P-15 respectively and Account extract at Ex. P-16. None of these documents were denied or disputed in the cross-examination of the complainant from the accused side. Thus, Exs. P-8, P-9 and P-10 would go to establish that the accused had availed loan facility, which as per Ex. P-10, is a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant agreeing to repay the same as per ECS at Ex. P-11. 14. The accused has also not denied the fact that the cheques at Exs. P-2 and P-3 were drawn by him and that when presented for realisation, both the cheques returned for the reason of insufficiency of funds as per the Banker's endorsement at Exs. P-4 and P-5. Though the accused has denied that the legal notice was served upon him, the said legal notice has been returned to the sender with the postal shara that the address had remained absent and that intimation was delivered to him. Thus, even after delivering of the intimation about the arrival of the postal article, since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te than that of the lodging of the complaint, however, along with the complaint also, the very same PW-1, who has filed the said complaint, has produced one more copy of the General Power of Attorney, however, shown to have been executed by one Future Capital Holdings Ltd., in his favour. The said Power of Attorney authorises PW-1 to lodge the complaint and to proceed in the criminal prosecution. It is further observed in the impugned judgment passed in the Criminal Appeal that as per the documents produced by the complainant at the time of arguments, the complainant has produced the order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Petition No. 603/2009, wherein it is mentioned that Future Capital Credit Ltd., and Future Capital Services Ltd., were merged with each other and they became a single entity called as Future Capital Services Ltd., The said order of the High Court of Bombay further reveals that the Future Capital Holdings Ltd., is a part and parcel of Future Capital Services Ltd., The said finding and the availability of documents with the records placed in this petition have not been denied or disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. Furthermore, the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
