KAPILA DAIRY PRIVATE LTD Vs. RAJENDRA BALASAHEB KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates for respective parties.

(2.) By preferring these applications original complainant seeks leave to prefer appeal against the judgment of acquittal recorded in S. T. C. C. Nos. 996/99, 997/99 and 1000/ 99. The applicant had filed above referred 3 complaints alleging offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In S. T. C. Case No. 996/99 the allegations made by the complainant are that cheque dated 30/9/98 for Rs. 35,090/- came to be dishonoured and payment of that cheque amount was not made, inspite of demand notice. In S. T. C. Case No. 997/99, accused was alleged to have issued cheque dated 4-10-98 for Rs. 34100/ -. It was dishonoured and intimation dated 5-10-98 was given to the complainant. Demand of that amount was made but it was not satisfied, so alleging offence under section 138 of the Act, second complaint came to be filed. In S. T. C. Case No. 1000/99 complainant alleged offence on account of dishonour of cheque dated 1-10-98 for Rs. 25773/- and amount under the said cheque was demanded but not paid inspite of service of notice.

(3.) At the trial, complainant examined one witness and produced on record the cheque, intimation of dishonour of the cheque and different notices. Accused came with specific defence that on dishonour of 3 cheques on 5-10-98 complainant issued a demand notice on 6-10-98 and after that demand all 3 complaints were not filed within the period of limitation. In support of this defence accused No. 1 examined himself and also produced on record demand notice Exh. 85. The complainant also admitted issuance of demand notice Exh. 85 demanding the alleged amount of 3 dishonoured cheques. In view of these facts, the trial Court held that there was a demand of amount of 3 -dishoncured cheques and said demand was as per proviso to Clause (b) to section 138 of the act. All 3 complaints were held not filed within the stipulated period and complaint was held to be barred by limitation and accused came to be acquitted. Complainant by these applications claimed leave to prefer appeal against acquittal.