GOA PLAST PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CHICO URSULA DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Goa Plast Pvt. Ltd. , a registered company, challenges the findings recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji, in Pvt. N. C. Case No. 149/93/b, whereby the respondent/original accused Shri Chico Ursula DSouza came to be acquitted by the order dated August 25, 1995.

(2.) IN this appeal against acquittal, it is vehemently argued by Mr. Usgaokar, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the learned trial Judge has neither considered the facts nor the law in true and correct perspective. Thereby, the finding of acquittal as recorded by the trial Court is ipso facto erroneous and deserves to be set aside. Further it is submitted that the respondent/original accused be convicted according to law. Alternatively, it is claimed that the case be remanded to the trial Court for fresh trial.

(3.) THE facts leading to the institution of the criminal case as transpired in the cross-examination of P. W. 1 Eric Cordeiro, are as follows : the respondent/original accused was working as a Director of the appellant-Company. During the tenure of his service, some defalcation came to the notice of the Company which, according to the Company, was to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/ -. It is deposed by Eric Cordeiro that to satisfy the liability, the respondent, on July 2, 1992, had issued ten postdated cheques in favour of the appellant. In the present case, we are concerned with the cheque which was issued in favour of the appellant for rs. 40,000/ -. The cheque is dated January 10, 1993, drawn on the Goa Urban Co-operative Bank, Panaji. As per the complaint as also the examination-in-chief of P. W. 1, Eric, the cheque issued by the respondent on January 10, 1993, was presented in the Bank and the Bank returned the same on April 12, 1993. In a nut shell, the cheque was dishonoured. The appellant issued a legal notice by registered post A/d to the respondent/accused on April 27, 1993 and the same was received by him on April 28, 1993. As there was no compliance even to the notice, the appellant was compelled to institute criminal proceedings against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.