BALASUBBARAJ Vs. R NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment in C. A. No. 20 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.

(2.) A private complaint was preferred by the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur, under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. , for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After taking the cognizance and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the complaint on file as C. C. No. 125 of 2000 and on appearance of the accused on summon copies under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. , were furnished to the accused. When the offence was explained to the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty. Before the trial Court P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 were examined and Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 12 were marked.

(3.) ACCORDING to P. W. 1, he is having a firm by name Energy Savers Marketing in which the accused is also a partner. On 31. 1. 1999 he got himself relieved from the partnership and on 1. 4. 1999 he has executed a deed of retirement. A memorandum of understanding (Ex. P. 1) was entered into between him and the accused. As per the memorandum of understanding Ex. P. 1, the accused owes Rs. 4,00,000/- to him and to discharge the said liability the accused had drawn four cheques each for Rs. 1,00,000/- and that the amount due under two cheques each for Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by the accused direct and when the 3rd cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- was presented in the Bharath Overseas Bank in which the complainant is having his account, the same was returned by the bank on 31. 1. 2000 on the ground of 'payment stopped'. Ex. P. 2 is the said dishonoured cheque which was accompanied by Ex. P. 3-bank memo. When the cheque was presented in the same bank on 10th of April 2000 once again it was returned for the same reason. Ex. P. 4 is the returned memo. When the cheque dated 15. 4. 2000 for Rs. 1,00,000/- was presented in the State Bank of Mysore, Hosur Branch, the same was returned with an endorsement 'there is no sufficient funds'. Ex. P. 6 is the return memo. The dishonoured cheque is Ex. P. 5. P. W. 1 has issued lawyer's notice on 16. 4. 2000 to the accused as contemplated under Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act under the original of Ex. P. 7, which was acknowledged by the accused under Ex. P. 8. Ex. P. 9 is the reply notice dated 22. 4. 2000 containing the false averments.