SOORAJ C.K. Vs. R.REGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the second accused in the case C.C No. 1070/2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -III, Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) The aforesaid case was instituted upon Annexure-A complaint filed against the accused by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'the complainant') for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) The material averments in Annexure-A complaint are as follows: The complainant is a company and it is represented by its Vice President, Operations. The complainant company is engaged in the business of publishing advertisements of their customers in print and electronic media. The first accused is a private limited company. Accused 2 to 4 are the directors of the first accused company. The accused placed orders of advertisement of the first accused company with the complainant undertaking to pay the costs of such advertisement. There was an amount of Rs.5,34,910/- due from the accused to the complainant as on 30.11.2014. The accused had issued a cheque dated 05.05.2013 for Rs.5,24,212/- towards part payment of the amount due to the complainant. The complainant presented the aforesaid cheque in the bank but it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account. The complainant had filed a case as C.C No. 2420/2013. On 27.11.2014, the complaint in the aforesaid case was returned by the court with the observation that the drawee bank was situated at Bangalore and that the court had no jurisdiction to try the offence. Meanwhile, the accused approached the complainant and issued another cheque dated 15.03.2015 for Rs.99,735/- for repayment of the debt due to the complainant. The complainant presented the aforesaid cheque in the bank. It was returned unpaid for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a lawyer notice to the accused demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The second and the third accused received the notice. The notice sent to the first and the fourth accused was returned unserved. The accused did not pay the amount of the cheque.