E. GOPINATHA KURUP, S/O. RAYARAPPA KURUP, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SASTHA MOTORS, GURUVAYOOR ROAD, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P. BALAGANGADHARAN, S/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, SALES SUPERVISOR, M/S. SASTHA MOTORS Vs. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM AND ANOTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second respondent in Crl. Appeal Nos.133/2006, 127/2006, 129/2006 and 131/2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thrissur, is the appellant in all these appeals. All these cases were arising out of four private complaints filed by the appellant against the 2nd respondent alleging commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the 'Act').

(2.) The common case of the complainant in all these cases was that, the complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Sastha Motors Guruvayoor and he was the authorised distributor of petroleum products of M/s. British Petroleum. The accused was appointed as talkist by the complainant for the area of Guruvayoor and Punnapra to distribute Tata B.P. Lube products as per agreement dated 17.08.1998. Accused used to purchase lube products from the complainant on credit basis. As per the accounts, there was an amount of Rs. 3,45,277.81 was due from the accused to the complainant and in discharge of those liabilities he had issued Exts.P2 and P5 for Rs. 50,000.00 each with date 15.11.1999 and 15.12.1999 respectively. Ext.P12 cheque for Rs. 25,000.00 dated 14.09.1999 and Ext.P15 cheque dated 4.11.1999 for Rs. 37,707.30, Ext.P22 cheque dated 15.03.2000 for Rs. 50,000.00 and Ext.P29 cheque dated 15.01.2000 for Rs. 50,000.00, Ext.P32 cheque dated 15.02.2000 for Rs. 50,000.00 drawn on Corporation Bank Ltd., favour of the complainant.

(3.) In spite of letters dated 20.12.1999, 04.01.2000 and 01.02.2000 by which he was asked to settle the accounts on or before 09.02.2000, since the accused had not paid the amount, Ext.P2 and P5 cheques were presented and the same were dishonoured for the reason account closed evidenced by Ext.P3 and P6 dishonour memos and the same was intimated to the complainant by their banker vide Ext.P4 and P7 intimation letters. Complainant issued Ext.P8 notice dated 02.03.2000 vide Ext.P9 postal receipt to the accused intimating the dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. The accused received the same evidenced by Ext.P10 postal acknowledgment. He had sent Ext.P11 reply notice containing false allegations. Since he did not pay the amount, he had committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So the complainant filed a complaint on the basis of the above two cheques under Sec. 138 of the Act, which after enquiry was taken on file as CC.No.30/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur.