K.SRINIVASULU Vs. INTERNATIONAL PANAACEALIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Mr. K. Srinivasulu has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') against the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate/CJ -02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.12/2012 titled 'M/s. International Panaacea Limited vs. Mr. K. Srinivasulu' for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act').

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.1/ complainant filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner on the allegations, inter alia, that the petitioner/ accused being the proprietor of M/s. Sonalika Agri Bio Crop Science was appointed as a dealer by the complainant company for the sale of its products on outright sale basis and an agreement for the said purpose was executed on 16.11.2010. In terms of agreement, the complainant company supplied various bio -fertilizers and bio - pesticides products to the petitioner on credit from time to time as per order placed by the petitioner. As per the books of accounts being maintained by the complainant company in the ordinary course of business, accused firm was liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,49,636/ - (Rupees four lakhs, forty nine thousand six hundred and thirty six only). The accused issued cheque bearing no.875509 for Rs.4,49,636/ - dated 20.10.2011 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhagya Nagar Branch, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh in favour of complainant towards the payment of outstanding dues. The respondent No.1 deposited the said cheque with its banker, namely, Royal Bank of Scotland, New Delhi. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks "funds insufficient", vide return memo dated 21.10.2011 which was received by the complainant company on 25.10.2011. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 served a legal notice dated 12.11.2011. Despite service of the said notice, the petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque in question within the stipulated period.

(3.) THE petitioner moved an application under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by learned trial court vide impugned order dated 19.12.2012. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred the present petition.