SAYADU BEEDI COMPANY Vs. THIRUMALAI SUBBU ALIAS THIRUMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal has been filed by the complainant against the Judgment dated 23.07.1997 made in C.A.No.29 of 1996 of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment dated 19.03.1996 made in C.C.No.35 of 1995 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli.

(2.) THE complainant's case is briefly as follows: i)THE complainant is doing Beedi Wholesale business and having its registered office at No.4G, /salai Street, Sindupoondurai, Tirunelveli. the son of the accused Palani Andavar was working as an accountant in the complainant's sales Depot at Madras. During his tenure, he misappropriated the company's money to the tune of Rs.3,12,072/- Palani Andavar admitted his criminal act during the enquiry conducted by the company and the said Palani Andavar and the accused gave an undertaking in writing to repay the amount to the company. ii) As a part settlement, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.SCBL 0199200 dated 22.10.1994 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- drawn at Canara Bank in favour of the complainant for the criminal acts committed by his son Palani Andavar. When the complainant presented the said cheque on 18.11.1994 it was returned as unpaid on 28.11.1004 due to insufficiency of funds. Hence, the complainant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque, sent notices to both the accused and his son through his lawyer by RPAD and also under Certificate of posting, calling upon them to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. THEre was no response for the said notice. Since the accused had issued the cheque knowing well of the consequences thereof, he has committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and 420 I.P.C. and he has filed a complaint within one month from the date of expiry of 15 days grace time given under the notice. THE accused must be punished with maximum sentence.

(3.) ON consideration of evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 N.I Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one months.