SURYAKANT V KANAKIA Vs. V MUTHUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT in C. C. No. 9577 of 1991 is the Appellant. Aggrieved over the order of acquittal of the Respondent / Accused under Sec. 138 negotiable Instruments Act by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (by judgment dated 22. 03. 1993), the Appellant / COMPLAINANT has preferred this appeal.

(2.) RELEVANT facts for disposal of this appeal could briefly be stated thus:- On 18. 03. 1991 the Accused has availed a loan of rs. 20,000/- from the Complainant. He has agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 30% per annum. For repayment of the said amount, Accused had issued 11 cheques on various dates between May 1991 - August 1991 drawn on standard Chartered Bank, N. S. C. Bose Road , Chennai. When the cheques were presented for collection in UCO Bank on 30. 08. 1991 by the Complainant, all cheques were dishonoured on 02. 09. 1991 with endorsement'payments stopped by the drawer'. The Complainant sent a legal notice dated 05. 09. 1991. The Accused received the same on 09. 09. 1991. But he has not made arrangements to repay the loan. The Complainant has filed the complaint under Sec. 138 Negotiable instruments Act for nine cheques.

(3.) UPON consideration of the submissions by both sides, judgment of the trial Court and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:- (i) Whether the trial Court was right in saying that dishonour of all the cheques cannot find a place in one complaint " (ii) whether Sec. 219 Crl. P. C. is mandatory (particularly in respect of proceedings under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act)mand whether the trial Court was right in applying Sec. 219 Crl. P. C. and acquitting the accused "