R.SRIDHARAN Vs. CETHAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed as against the Judgment dtd. 18/8/2015 passed in Crl.A.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1410 of 2005, dtd. 27/1/2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo 12 months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default, to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. The trial Court also ordered compensation to the tune of Rs.23,00,000.00 to the respondent payable by the petitioner herein.

(2.) The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) The crux of the complaint is that the respondent is a public limited company, and it is represented by its Senior Executive (Legal). The petitioner introduced M/s.Trial Tex and TKT Corporation of Tiruppur to the respondent in the year 1999. The petitioner wanted the respondent to execute job work for the export orders of the said companies to the tune of Rs.25,00,000.00. The petitioner stood as a guarantee for the payment to be made by the said two companies for the job work executed by the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent had executed the job work as agreed by them. The total payment due to the respondent was Rs.25,00,000.00. The said two companies are having some problems with the customs authorities regarding the shipping dues. Even after repeated requests from the respondent, the said two companies failed to pay the amount for the job work done by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent approached the petitioner, since he stood as guarantor for the said two companies. He issued a cheque, dtd. 23/12/2004 to discharge the part liability of the aforementioned two companies to the respondent for the job work done. The said cheque was presented for collection and the same was returned 'dishonoured' for the reason that the 'funds insufficient'. Therefore, the respondent caused legal notice to the petitioner and the same was duly served on 6/5/2005. On receipt of the same, the petitioner also issued a reply notice without making any payment on the dishonoured cheque. Hence, the complaint.