MOWIN ENTERPRISES Vs. TYRE TECH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore. As against the order of acquittal of the respondents/accused 1 and 3, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) The appellant company is a partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, having office at 235 Vivekananda Road, Ramnagar, Coimbatore-641 009. The 1st accused company is also a partnership firm is having its office at Nehru College Road, Malumachampatti, Coimbatore. The complainant is dealing with a Carbon Black amongst other products. The accused No.2 and 3 are having business transaction with the complainant company. Accordingly, the accused No.1, represented by 2 and 3 have purchased carbon black from the complainant under Invoice No.104, dated 009.2003 for a sum of Rs. 2,06,194/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Six Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Four Only). The said business transaction were negotiated by accused No.2 and 3 and they promised to make payment within 30 days. When the complainant demanded for payment of the above said amount, the accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.3 had issued a cheque bearing No.305239 dated 112003 drawn on State Bank of India, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Coimbatore-21 for a sum of Rs. 2,06,194/- towards discharge of their debt liability under Invoice No.104 dated 009.2003. The cheque was presented by the complainant in Vijaya Bank, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore for collection on 112003. The cheque was returned with an endorsement ''Insufficient Funds''. The said intimation was communicated by its banker vide return memo dated 15.12003.

(3.) Thereafter, the complainant company sent a legal notice dated 06.01.2004 to the 1st respondent's office and the said legal notice was returned with postal endorsement ''company lock out'' on 10.01.2004. Accused No.2 who is the husband of accused No.3 received the statutory notice on the same address. Therefore, the accused No.3/2nd respondent herein has wilfully refused to receive the statutory notice. Accused No.2 having received the notice has sent a reply notice through his counsel on 20.01.2004 with false and baseless allegation. In the reply notice, the 2nd accused denied the plea made under Invoice No.104 dated 02.09.200 Accordingly, there is no business transaction in between the complainant company and the 2nd accused as the Company was dissolved as early as on 05.02.200 However, due to earlier business transaction, cheque was mis used by the complainant and filed the complaint and Accused No.3/2nd respondent herein have nothing to do with the above allegation.