M SREERAMULU REDDY Vs. N C RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, M. Sreeramulu Reddy is the sole accused in c. C. No. 21104 of 1989, pending on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, madras. On a private complaint instituted by the respondent, he is being prosecuted for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (Act No. 66 of 1989 ).

(2.) THE allegation made in the complaint, disclose that the petitioner had approached the respondent for tenancy of the first floor of the premises concerned, in or about April 1989 and agreed to pay Rs. 30,000 as advance. The petitioner occupied the premises on 7. 4. 1989. The petitioner paid Rs. 12,500/- in cash, representing a portion of the amount to be paid as advance and further handed over a cheque dated 7. 4. 1989 for the balance of Rs. 17,500/- drawn on Karnataka Bank limited, Anna Nagar.

(3.) THE complainant further states that as requested by the petitioner, the cheque was presented through his banker Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Nagar, Madras. But it was dishonoured on 31. 5. 1989 for want of funds in the account of the petitioner. On being questioned by respondent, the petitioner is alleged to have stated that he was unable to arrange for funds. This representation was on 21. 7. 1989. The cheque was presented over again and for a second time the instrument was returned with an endorsement 'refer to drawer'. The complainant alleges that the cheque was presented for a second time on the advice of the petitioner. The respondent issued a notice dated 31. 7. 1989 through his lawyer calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 17,500/- and reply was duly sent. The complainant, however, states that notwithstanding the reply notice, the petitioner requested the respondent to re-present the cheque over again expressing regret for its not having been honoured, on the earlier occasions. The cheque was presented again on 11. 10. 1989 and returned as in the past 'for want of funds in the account of the petitioner'. The respondent issued a lawyer's notice on 14. 10. 1989, which was received by the petitioner on 21. 10. 1989. The petitioner sent a reply dated 23. 10. 1989 denying his liability to pay. Thereafter the complaint was filed on 10. 11. 1989. The trial magistrate took cognizance and issued process to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the trial Magistrate, on a few occasions and on 13. 5. 1990. The respondent was examined-in-chief, in the trial court. This petition was admitted by this Court on 13. 5. 1990, only after the respondent was examined before the magistrate.