LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-148

UMESH NAIK Vs. BONNY FERNANDES

Decided On June 29, 2022
Umesh Naik Appellant
V/S
BONNY FERNANDES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was the original complainant in N.I. Act Case No.14/2011/B on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, "B" Court, Panaji, is aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint and acquittal of the accused/respondents of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

(2.) The brief facts of the case which emanate from the record are that the respondents No.1 and 2 approached the appellant in the textile shop known as "Saroj Emporium" at Panaji and requested the appellant, who was one of the partners of that shop, to supply sarees, suitings', shirting, silk materials and bedsheet sets on credit. The "Saroj Emporium" being a partnership firm, the appellant required the consent of other partners and one of the partners, Mr Rupesh D. Naik present there was not willing to supply the aforesaid material on the strength of a postdated cheque. However, since the appellant knew the respondents, the appellant agreed to supply the textile material by accepting the cheque in his personal capacity and assured the partners who were present in the shop that he would transfer the amount in the account of the partnership firm, the moment the postdated cheque was realised. The appellant also accepted the responsibility for payment of the said amount to the partnership firm "Saroj Emporium". Trusting the words and representations of respondents No.1 and 2, the appellant on 10/05/2010 supplied the aforesaid material to respondents No.1 and 2, worth ?7,50,000/-. The respondent No.2 issued a postdated cheque bearing No.775820 of 29/05/2010 drawn on the Axis Bank Limited, Panaji Branch, in the name of the appellant, which is the subject matter of the present case.

(3.) On presentation, the said cheque was returned dishonoured with the remark "Account closed". The payment was not made despite demand through statutory legal notice and ultimately the complaint in question was filed on 19/01/2011 before the Trial Court.