VIJAY POWER GENERATORS LTD. Vs. SUMIT SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant before this Court is a Company engaged in the business of selling power generators and related equipments. The case of the appellant/complainant is that M/s. Tarun Engineering Syndicate, which is a partnership firm, purchased goods from it and issued cheques from time to time towards payment of those goods. The cheques, when presented to the bank were dishonoured with the endorsement ''Account Closed/Payment Stopped ''. After serving demand notice upon the firm, as many as six complaints were filed by the appellant/complainant, five against the firm through its partner Shri Sumit Seth and one against Shri Sumit Seth, describing him as the proprietor of M/s. Tarun Engineering Syndicate.

(2.) IN the complaint relevant to Crl. A. No.1432/2013, a cheque dated 10.10.1997 was issued by Shri Sumit Seth for a sum of Rs.4,59,704/ -; in the complaint relevant to Crl. A. No.1433/2013 a cheque dated 1.8.1997 was issued for Rs.5.00 lakh; in the complaint relevant to Crl. A. No.1434/2013 a cheque dated 25.7.1997 was issued for Rs.8.00 lakh; in the complaint relevant to Crl. A. No.1435/2013 a cheque dated 22.7.1997 was issued for Rs.9,79,151/ - and in the complaint relevant to Crl. A. No.1436/2013 a cheque dated 15.7.1997 was issued for Rs.8.00 lakh by Mr. Sumit Seth as partner of M/s. Tarun Engineering Syndicate. Two cheques dated 3.8.1997 - one for Rs.6,56,633/ - and the other for Rs.4.00 lakh were subject matter of the complaint in Crl. A. No.1431/2013 but since the payment against those cheques have already been made to the appellant/complainant Company, Crl. A. No.1431/2013, arising out of the decisionof the trial court, was withdrawn by the appellant on 7.5.2014.

(3.) WHEN Shri Sumit Seth was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he admitted that the cheques in question were drawn on the bank account of his partnership firm Tarun Engineering Syndicate and bears his signature. He claimed that the aforesaid cheques were issued to the complainant Company as advance payment for supply of material but no material was supplied against the cheques. He also claimed that they had issued reminders to the complainant but that was of no avail. He denied having received any notice from the complainant but admitted that the address appearing on the legal notice and postal articles was the correct address of the firm. No witness was examined by the accused.