B D KAITAN AND CO Vs. A RAMAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment in C. C. No. 74 of 1995 on the file of the Court of First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

(2.) THE complainant has preferred a private complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused.

(3.) P. W. 1 is David Padmarajan, Branch Manager of the complainant's company having branch at Coimbatore. According to P. W. 1, the head office of the complainant's company is at Calcutta and that Ex P1 is the authorisation letter given by the Chairman of the complainant's company on the basis of a resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors on 1. 3. 1993 at 2. 00pm. , and that complainant's company is indulged in manufacture of pesticides and that the accused who is running an agency by name Sri Murugan Agency at North Arcot District is a customer of the complainant's company and that the accused used to purchase the pesticides from the complainant's company on credit basis and that an account was maintained for the said transaction and that the pesticides were transported to Sri Murugan Agency at North Arcot District through lorry and that after the delivery of the goods, the accused used to send cheques for the goods purchased by him from the complainant's company and that a regular account was maintained in the complainant's company for the said transaction and that in the said transaction, a sum of Rs. 17,86,617. 25ps was the amount due as on 20. 9. 1993 and that a statement of account was furnished to the accused. Ex P2 is the copy of statement of account. After the receipt of the statement of account, the accused sent Indian Bank cheque for Rs. 17,86,617. 25ps under Ex P3 and that handed over the cheque to the Managing Director of the complainant's bank viz. , Thiru Arvind Kaitan and that he presented the cheque in the Union Bank of India at Calcutta. Ex P4 is the counterfoil for the pay-in-slip for the deposit of the said cheque in the Union Bank of India at Calcutta Branch. The said cheque was forwarded to the Indian Bank Branch at Darapadavedu Village under Ex P5. The said branch of Indian Bank has returned the cheque to the Calcutta Branch by stating that they have received instructions for stop paymennt from the drawer of the cheque and the same was informed through Ex P6 by the head office of Union Bank of India, Calcutta Branch to the complainant's company. The fact of dishonouring of the cheque was informed to the accused through a notice Ex P7. Ex P8 is the acknowledgment for the receipt of said notice by the accused.