M.S.MARKETING Vs. T.VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant was the complainant in the Court of learned XXII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XXIV Addl.Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Rs. trial Court'), in C.C.No.64/2007, which case was filed against 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 outstanding due amount, the accused issued two cheques to the complainant bearing No.450377, dated 2.8.2006, for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and another cheque bearing No.450378, dated 18.8.2006, for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, both drawn on Vijaya Bank, Tallur Branch, Udupi District. The complainant presented those cheques on 18.8.2006 through his Banker, however, the said cheques came to be dishonoured for the reason of Rs. insufficient funds' on 13.10.2006. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 25.10.2006 to the accused through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due, as well under Certificate of Posting. Though the notice was served, the accused neither replied to the said notice nor met the demand made in the notice, which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

(3.) The respondent who was accused in the trial Court appeared and contested the matter. In order to prove their case, the complainant got examined one Sri T.K.Umapathy, who is said to be its Sales Manager and an authorised person to give evidence and through him got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-11. From the accused side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits.