GANESH SUKHLAL JOSHI Vs. M A BHARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid five criminal appeals arise out of the common judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur in all five criminal cases and, therefore, these five criminal appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) FIVE different complaints were filed by the present appellant Ganesh Sukhlal Josru, Partner of M/s. Nagpur Chemical Agency (for short, the Tcomplainant) against the respondent No. 1 MA Bhamti, Managing Director, M/s. Nagpur Detergent Private Limited, C-27 MIDC Hingna Road, Naagpur (for short, the accused) in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the purposes of the facts, Complaint No. 1125 of 92 filed by the complainant against the accused may be adverted to. According to the complainant, it has been supplying sodium tripoly phosphate and sulphonic acid to the accused and on 10. 12. 91 vide Order No. NDPL/42/91-92, complainant supplied Scid Clurry to the accused for consideration of Rs. 3,69,984. 2 1. Accused issued cheques towards part payment of the aforesaid amount. The complainant presented the cheques to the State Bank oflndia and the said cheques were returned by the Bankers with the endorsement exceeds arrangement. On receipt of the intimation from the Bankers about the dishonour of cheques for insufficient funds in the Bank account of the accused, complainant issued statutory notice asking the accused to pay amount of cheque within 15 days therefrom. According to the complainant, it false reply was sent by the accused and failed to make payment of the said amount and consequently, the complaint case was filed.

(3.) ON the basis of the said complaint, trial commenced and statement of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. The Trial Court after recording the evidence, documentary as well as oral and hearing the learned Counsel for parties, held that the complaint has not been properly filed and that it is not proved that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently, accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in all the cases giving rise to all these five criminal appeals against the judgment of acquittal.