VARUN BEVERAGES LTD Vs. ABHAY SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/ complainant is challenging the judgment and order dated 27/03/2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Criminal Case No.26/OA/NI/10/D. By the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the first respondent from an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, 1881 (the Act, for short)

(2.) The appellant/ complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the Magistrate. The complainant is marketing soft drink /packaged drinking water. The first respondent was a retailer, selling the said soft drinks and packaged drinking water. The appellant used to supply the soft drinks to the first respondent in respect of which, bills used to be raised. It was contended that as on 31/03/2009, the first respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,92,212/- (comprising of 2,32,272/- towards the price of soft drink and Rs.59,940/- being the cost of empties i.e. bottles and crates lying in possession of the first respondent). It was contended that the first respondent had issued a cheque dated 17/11/2009 in favour of the appellant, which was drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Kolhapur Branch for a sum of Rs.2,92,212/- towards the satisfaction of the outstanding amount. When the appellant deposited the cheque with its Banker i.e. Yes Bank, Margao, Goa, it was dishonoured on account of "payment stopped by drawer". This was communicated to the appellant on 23/11/2009, following which the appellant issued a notice and thereafter, filed the complaint. It appears that the first respondent had sent a reply dated 31/12/2009 to the notice, denying the liability to pay the amount. The appellant sent a counter reply to the same, dated 04/02/2010. At the trial, the appellant examined its Manager Rajesh Nandedkar (PW1) and Reena Naik (PW2) and produced certain documents, including the invoices and the statement of Ledger Account. The first respondent examined himself and one Niraj Shaha (DW2).

(3.) The learned Magistrate framed a solitary point as to whether appellant has proved that the first respondent had issued the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt / liability and whether the cheque was dishonoured. The learned Magistrate answered the point in the negative and proceeded to dismiss the complaint. That is how, the appellant is before this Court.