JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD Vs. ARVIND IRRIGATION SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sant, the learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the Impugned Judgement in Summary Criminal Case No. 655 of 1997 whereby the learned J.M.F.C, dismissed the complaint filed by the present applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted the respondent-accused.

(2.) To state in brief the case of the applicant is that the applicant it is a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing irrigation systems and its components. The respondent was authorized dealer of the applicant and he used to purchase the irrigation systems and components from the applicant. For repayment of certain dues, on 18.5.1997, the respondent issued a cheque No. 641981 for amount of Rs. 422299.95 in favour of the applicant. The said cheque was presented for encashment but it was dishonoured on the ground that the account was closed. Hence, the applicant issued notice dated 18.6.1997 to the respondent, who failed to make the payment. Hence the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) The impugned judgment reveals that the respondent had denied any liability and had contended that the blank cheques were obtained from him as security on 16.8.1995 and that no amount was due from him at that time and as such the cheques were not issued for satisfaction of any dues or liabilities towards the applicant. The learned trial Court noted that Kailash Agarwal, C.W.1 for the applicant had admitted that on stamp paper of Rs. 10/- Rajendra Patil, Sales Manager of the applicant had admitted that disputed cheque No. 641981 and another cheque No. 641982 were issued by the accused in favour of the applicant as security on 16.8.1995. It appears that blank cheque was issued on that date and the amount of the debt were filled in later on. It also appeared that the learned trial Court directed the applicant to produce the statement of accounts to show the amount due from the respondent. However, the statement of account revealed that there was no transaction in the year 1995 nor there was any due from the respondent. In view of these facts the trial Court came to the conclusion that the cheque was not issued for satisfaction of any debt or liability and, therefore, offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not committed.