A.SUBRAMANIAM Vs. NEW WIN EXPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Records perused. Despite receipt of notice, the respondent has not entered appearance in person or through his counsel. So, this Court has requested the Legal Services Authority to appoint Legal Aid Counsel to represent for the respondent/accused and assist the Court. Accordingly, one Mr.C.Samivel was nominated by the Legal Services Authority.

(2.) This appeal is filed by the complainant aggrieved by the order passed by the lower appellate Court reversing the finding of the trial Court and acquitting the respondents herein from charges under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the complainant A.Subramaniam, son of Appukutty is known to the second respondent Kumaraswamy. For improvement of his business, Kumarasamy borrowed hand loan of Rs.5,25,000/- from Subramaniam on 06.08.2006. Kumarasamy promised to repay the money within a month. In view of the long standing friendship, the money was advanced to Kumarasamy. To discharge the said debt, Kumarasamy issued a cheque dated 06.09.2006 for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- drawn at Union Bank of India, Tiruppur branch from the account maintained by M/s.New Win Export. The complainant was made to believe that the second respondent Kumarasamy and his brother Govindaraj are partners of M/s.New Win Export. On return of the cheque with an endorsement "insufficient of funds"?, Subramaniam caused a statutory notice to M/s.New Win Export represented by the Managing partners and to Kumarasamy and Govindaraj in their personal capacity. On receipt of the said statutory notice, the second respondent Kumarasamy, who was signatory of the said cheque gave a reply through his counsel, wherein he has denied the transaction with Subramaniam son of Appukutti. He has also stated in the reply notice that his brother Govindaraj is not a partner in the said business. He has nothing to do with the firm M/s.New Win Export. The specific case of the second respondent as asserted in his reply notice is that the subject cheque was issued to one Suryalakshmi Finance in which the Subramaniam, Velliangiri and Sekar were partners. The cheque was issued as security for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- borrowed in the year 2000. The same was not returned. But, later misused by presenting in the year 2006. With this averment, a complaint filed by Subramaniam was taken on file and tried before the trial Court.