K SUBRAMANIAM Vs. SATRAMDAS MAHESHKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. R. C. No. 812 of 2004 has been preferred by the revision petitioner challenging the Judgment in C. A. No. 20/2003 on the file of Additional district and Sessions Judge/fast Track Court No. 2, Sale m which had arisen out of a Judgment in C. C. No. 607/2000 on the file of Judicial magistrate NO. 3, Salem. CRL. R. C. No. 813 of 2004 has been preferred by the revision petitioner arises out of a Judgment in C. A. No. 11/2003 on the file of the additional District and Sessions Judge/fast Track Court, No. 2, Salem which emante s from a Judgment in C. C. No. 171/2000 on the file of judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Salem. CRL. R. C. No. 812/2004:

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

(3.) P. W. 1 is the power of Attorney holder of the complainant company who would depose that the accused had borrowed a sum of rs. 7,00,000/- from the complainant company on 8. 7. 1998 and executed three promissory notes and out of the borrowed amount, 50% i. e. , Rs. 3,50,000/- was paid by the accused and the amount remains to be paid by the accused comes to rs. 3,50,000/- and in order to discharge the said amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-, the accused had drawn a cheque Ex P5 for Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant on 25. 9. 1999 and when the said cheque was presented in the Bank for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement that there is no sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Exs P6 and P7 are the debit advice and returned memo respectively dated 27. 9. 1999 sent along with the impugned cheque Ex P5 by the bank. A notice under the original of Ex P8 dated 8. 10. 1999 was sent by the complainant to the accused, which was acknowledged by the accused on 11. 10. 1999 under Ex P9. But the accused had failed to send any reply notice nor took any steps to discharge the balance of the loan amount. Exs P1 to P3 are the copy of the promissory notes and Ex P. 4 is the copy of the power of attorney deed in favour of P. W. 1. 5a. P. W. 2 is the Manager of Andhra Bank, Salem Town in which the complainant is having his account. According to P. W. 2, Ex P5 impugned cheque was presented for collection on 25. 9. 1999 but the same was returned with an endorsement that there is no sufficient fund in the account of the accused to honour the same. 5c. P. W. 3 is the Manager of Canara Bank, Salem wherein the accused is having his account. According to him, the impugned cheque Ex P5 was forwarded to his bank from andhra Bank on 25. 9. 1999 for collection, but the same was returned with an endorsement that there is no sufficient funds in the account of the accused to honour the same. Ex P11 is the statement of account for the accused's account.