T RAGHAVENDRA Vs. K H MUMBARADDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question of law is raised in all the above said cases. Therefore, all the cases are taken up together and common order is passed.

(2.) FOR the purpose of easy understanding and convenience, I would like to retain the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the Trial Court i.e., IIJMFC , Bijapur.

(3.) ONE Mr. K.H.Mumbaraddi, Executive Officer, Managing Partner being Proprietor of M/s. Nisarga Vineyard Private Limited lodged seven complaints under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short 'the Act') against the accused -the Director, Alpine Wineries Private Limited, 33/1, Sapthagiri Arcade, 2nd Floor, 8th Cross, H.Siddaiah Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore. The allegations made in the complaint are that, complainant was doing the business of wine manufacturing and the accused -a private limited company is authorized to store and sell the wine from fruits under the name and style of 'Alpine Wineries Private Limited' situated at Holesalu village, T.Narasipur Taluka, Mysore District. The complainant is also one of the manufacturers of Carbernet Sauvignon Red bulk wine, Shairaz Red bulk wine and Sauvignon Blanc wine, Bulk wine etc. It is alleged that as per the discussion held between the complainant and the accusedcompany , the authorized signatory of accused -company has placed an order for supply of wines on respective dates. After placing the order, the General Manager by name V.G.Manjunath of Alpine Wineries Private Limited, has acknowledged by passing receipts for having receipt of wines from the complainant. After receiving the above said wines, the accused has issued post dated cheques drawn on Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Mission Road, Bangalore. It is further alleged that on the request of the accused, the complainant has presented said cheques and those cheques came to be dishonoured on ground of 'stop payment' issued by the drawer of the cheques. The complainant has issued a legal notice on 26.06.2012 on the address of the accused calling upon him to comply with the notice within fifteen days. As there was no reply or compliance within the statutory period, complaints came to be lodged against the accused. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and after going through the materials on record, was of the opinion that the complainant has made out a case for issuance of summons. Therefore, the Court has issued summons and inspite of summons, as the accused did not appear, it appears, the Court has issued NBW against the accused. At this juncture, the present petitions are filed before this Court.