AGRI GOLD EXIMS LIMITED Vs. TAHA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are connected and are therefore taken up together and disposed of by this common order. By the judgment in C.C.No. 7788, 7789, and 7790 of 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court- III, Saidapet, Chennai, dtd. 9/11/2017, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) These three cases are private complaints filed under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complainant's case is that he is in the business of exporting iron ore and related products. While so, the respondent/accused entered into an agreement to supply iron ore, and according to the memorandum of understanding, the complainant advanced Rs.3,36,00,000.00 to the accused. The accused was bound to supply 40,000 tonnes of iron ore at the rate of 2,000 tonnes per working day. However, the iron ore was not supplied. In repayment of the advance and in discharge of his liability, the accused issued cheque No.204224 dtd. 1/2/2006 for Rs.40,00,000.00 and cheque No.204225 dtd. 1/2/2006 for Rs.10,00,000.00, which are the subject matter of C.C.No. 7788 of 2007. The accused also issued cheque No.396841 dtd. 30/9/2005 for Rs.50,00,000.00, cheque No.396806 dtd. 1/2/2006 for Rs.32,00,000.00, and cheque No.396829 dtd. 1/2/2006 for Rs.62,00,000.00, which are the subject matter of C.C.No. 7789 of 2007. Additionally, the accused issued cheque No.396842 dtd. 30/12/2005 for Rs.50,00,000.00, cheque No.396843 dtd. 31/12/2005 for Rs.50,00,000.00, and cheque No.396844 dtd. 31/12/2005 for Rs.50,00,000.00, which are the subject matter of C.C.No. 7790 of 2007. All these cheques were presented by the complainant for collection but were returned dishonoured with the endorsement "funds insufficient" or "payment stopped by drawer". Subsequently, a statutory notice was issued, but neither was the amount paid nor was any reply given.

(3.) Accordingly, these three complaints were presented, and upon recording the sworn statements, the complaints were taken on file and summons were issued to the accused. Upon appearance, furnishing of copies, and questioning, the accused denied the imputations and stood trial. To establish the charges, one P. Venkatesan, the Vice-President of the company, was examined as P.W.1, and the respective cheques, return memos, debit advice, legal notice, and the returned covers were marked as exhibits in the respective complaints.