V VALLIAPPAN Vs. S M RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Original Petition is filed by the accused in C. C. No. 1126 of 2002 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Madras, challenging the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras made in Criminal Revision Case No. 127 of 2003 dated 5. 12. 2003 confirming the order of dismissal passed by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras in Crl. M. P. No. 3772 of 2002 in C. C. No. 1126 of 2002 filed under Sections 251 and 257 of Criminal Procedure Code to drop all further proceedings initiated under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner/accused.

(2.) THE private complaint filed by the respondent on 17. 1. 2002 has been taken on file in C. C. No. 1126 of 2002 under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act stating that the cheque bearing No. 463061 for Rs. 1,51,250/- dated 22. 11. 2001 issued by the accused was dishonoured and returned for "insufficiency of funds" when presented for collection and therefore, the petitioner/accused is punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also stated that the said cheque was issued towards the loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- borrowed on 20. 4. 2001 by the petitioner/accused with his wife V. Lakshmi, for which they also executed promissory note and after several demands to repay the amount due on the promissory note, such cheque was issued.

(3.) THE petitioner/accused filed Crl. M. P. No. 3772 of 2002 under Sections 251 and 257 of Criminal Procedure Code to drop all further proceedings stating that the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,51,250/- not towards loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- on 20. 4. 2001 as claimed by the complainant, but it was issued towards prior transactions in the year 1999-2000, for which purpose only he issued blank cheque in which the amount and other particulars have been filled up latter by the complainant. It is also stated that the person, who signed in the complaint, has not been duly authorised by the respondent company. The petition was opposed by filing counter denying the case of the accused.