NEPTUNE INFLATABLES LTD Vs. HYDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought forth by the complainant challenging a judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in a private complaint filed by the appellant Neptune Inflatables Ltd., under Sec.138 read with 141 of The Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The appellant/complainant made the following averments in the complaint: The complainant company entered into business transaction with the accused company. The parties entered into a High Seas Sales Agreement on 6.10.1989 by which the accused agreed to reimburse the amount for the import of 40 Nos. of H.P. engine of Suzuki origin. Out of the same, a sum of Rs.3,82,000/- was due from the accused to the complainant. The accused issued a cheque bearing No.706362 dated 15.1.90 for Rs.3,82,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Royapettah, Madras, which was marked as Ex.P2. The complainant did not present the cheque till the end of May 1990, as the accused requested not to present the same for some time. Thereafter, the complainant presented the cheque on 28.5.90 before their Bank, and the same was returned with the remark "refer to drawer". On instructions from the accused, the cheque was again presented by the complainant on 2.6.90, and the same was returned with the endorsement "payment stopped by the drawer". Once again the cheque was presented on 2.7.90 as per the instructions of the accused, but it was returned as "refer to drawer". Before the cheque was presented, the complainant wrote a letter to the accused on 30.6.90 informing that they were presenting the cheque on 2.7.90. The complainant received a letter from the Indian Bank, Royapettah, Madras stating that whenever the said cheque was presented and re-presented, the same was returned with the endorsement "refer to drawer" because of insufficient funds. In such circumstances, the complainant issued a notice on 10.7.90. The accused having acknowledged the notice, replied on 24.7.90 giving evasive answer. 3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate who took the cognizance of the complaint, conducted enquiry. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and relied on 10 documents. On completion of the evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. No defence witness was examined, but 12 documents were marked on the side of the defence. After consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused stating that the complainant has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. The materials available are carefully scrutinised. The Court is unable to notice any substance in this appeal.