DEEPEE SHOE FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THEIR DIRECTOR MEENAKSHI NATARAJAN Vs. PALLAVA LEATHERS AND PRODUCTS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR PARTNER, P. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above four Revisions have been filed challenging the propriety and legality of the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Walajah in Crl. M.P. 1882 of 1995 in C.C. No. 168 of 1994; Crl. M.P. No. 1883 of 1995 in C.C. No. 153 of 1994 and Crl. M.P. No. 1881 of 1995 in C.C. No. 167 of 1994, on 16 -11 -1995. As consented to by the bar for the respective parties, these four Revisions are heard and disposed of by pronouncing this common order as the nature of transaction and the respective parties and the factual aspects in all the four cases are identical and similar.

(2.) IT appears from the case records that the common case among the parties is that the Petitioner M/s. Deepee Shoe Fabrics Private Limited represented by its Director, Mrs. Meenakshi Natarajan had placed an order for the supply of finished leather goods from the Respondent/complainant M/s. Pallava Leathers and Products represented by their Partner P. Srinivasan, Bharathi Nagar, Ranipet and accordingly goods were supplied, for the value of which, four cheques were drawn by the Petitioner herein on different dates for different amounts in favour of the Respondent and all got bounced subsequently when presented for encashment. This was followed by the exchange of legal notice and reply among themselves. However, the demand made by the Respondent for the payment of the amounts referred to under the instruments had not been complied with. Therefore, for the offence Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, four cases above referred were filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner before the Court below. After the issue of process and before commencement of the trial, petitions on behalf of the Petitioner was filed praying for discharge on the ground firstly that the name of the company has not been properly brought in the complaint and that secondly the Court in which the prosecution was launched has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the drawing of the cheque in favour of the Respondent, handing over the same, presentation of the same for encashment and bouncing had happened within the jurisdiction of Madras and that therefore no cause of action arises outside Madras so as to entertain the complaint in Walajah Court. The grounds raised were resisted on behalf of the complaint/Respondent. Upon hearing both sides on merits, learned Magistrate has not accepted the grounds projected by and on behalf of the Revision Petitioner and consequently rejected the Petitions for discharge by passing the impugned orders. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has come forward with these Revisions challenging the property and legality of the impugned orders as referred to supra.

(3.) THE Provisos to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, have also become relevant to be adverted, which run as follows: