K R NARAYANASAMY Vs. ARULMIGU ANNAI VEERAMATHIAMMAN TEXTILES PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP BY ITS PARTNER C JOTHIRAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore dated 01.03.2007 made in C.A.No.308 of 2006 by which the first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and conviction made by the Judicial Magistrate, No.V, Coimbatore, by his judgment dated 28.06.2006 in C.C.No.829 of 2003.

(2.) The appellant/complainant claimed that, the first respondent/accused is a partnership firm, wherein the second respondent/accused is a partner. The appellant/complainant had business transaction of cotton purchase and sale with the 2nd respondent. Out of the said business transaction, it is the claim of the appellant/complainant that, on 002003 under Invoice No.9, the appellant/complainant supplied cotton to the respondents/accused for a value of Rs.1,54,530/- and towards making the payment for the said supply of cotton, the second respondent/accused issued a cheque to the appellant/complainant on 28.02003 for a sum of Rs.1,54,530/- drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Chikkanna Chettiar Street, Tiruppur. The said cheque was presented on 20.03.2003 by the complainant at his bank. However, the same was returned for the reasons "Exceeds arrangement". Therefore, the complainant had given oral intimation about the return of cheque to the second respondent/accused on 09.04.2003. Thereafter, based on the instructions given by the second accused, the appellant/complainant had represented the said cheque at his bank on 16.06.2003. This time also, the cheque returned for the reasons "Exceeds arrangement" and this had been once again intimated to the second respondent/accused on 04.07.2003.

(3.) It is the further claim of the appellant/complainant that, inspite of second intimation given after the dishonor of the cheque second time, the second respondent/accused did not come forward to make the payment. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.07.2003, demanding to pay the said amount within the statutory period. Instead of repaying the said amount, the second respondent/accused had issued a reply on 12.08.2003, stating a different version. Thereby, he had not come forward to repay the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant/appellant had filed a complaint before the Trial Court for punishing the respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.