CAROMA AGENCIES PVT LTD Vs. SPEEDLINE CARGO MOVERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are Complainant's appeals and are filed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short) by Judgments/Orders dated 8-2-2007 of the learned J.M.F.C., Vasco-da-Gama.

(2.) THE Complainant is a Private Limited Company. There is only one accused in this case i.e. accused No.2 who is the Proprietor of the business run by him in the name and style of accused No.1. As all these appeals involve common facts, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, they are being disposed off by this common Judgment.

(3.) THE accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code, for short) but led no evidence in support of his case inasmuch as the explanation given by the accused in the statement recorded under the said Code is far from satisfactory. However, the reply filed by the accused could be considered as his defence and as per the said reply it was the case of the accused that truck bearing No.KA-30-B-7700 was handed over to him on hire charges of Rs.50,000/- per month to be paid over a period of 37 months on monthly intervals and towards the payment of the hire purchase instalments the accused had handed over to the Complainant 37 cheques of Rs.50,000/- bearing Nos.61016, 61018 to 61020 and 60214 and 60215, all drawn on Centurion Bank, Vasco-da-Gama, and, in addition the accused had paid to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,50,407/- on 16-6-2004 as security deposit. The accused also stated that the hire purchase agreement which had commenced on or about 16-6-2004 was terminated by mutual consent. The accused denied that the truck No.KA-30-B-7700 was taken on contract basis for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- per month. The accused admitted having taken on hire three trucks from the Complainant at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month per truck but stated that it was without specifying any period, and, all the three trucks were returned by the accused to the Complainant about two months and thereafter the said trucks were gainfully employed by the Complainant elsewhere. The accused also stated that the Complainant was paid an amount of Rs.4,60,000/- between 16-6-2004 and 7-3-2005, for all the said four trucks in full and final settlement of all claims. The accused, therefore, denied that he owed to the Complainant an amount of Rs.4,86,412/- as was alleged by the Complainant in the notice. The accused further stated that the seven cheques were from among 37 cheques which the accused had given to the Complainant towards hire purchase instalments of truck No.KA-30-B-7700 which cheques the Complainant was required to return to the accused, in view of cancellation of hire purchase agreement and the accused having requested the Complainant to return the said cheques and the Complainant having promised to do so never returned them with a mala fide intention which was then apparent with a view to misuse the same against the accused to extract more money from the accused and for that reason the accused was compelled to instruct his Bankers, namely Centurion Bank, Vasco-da-Gama, to stop payment of the said cheques, least the Complainant was able to misuse them. On behalf of the accused, it was also stated that when each of the said cheques were presented by the Complainant for payment, the accused had sufficient funds in his account, on which the said cheques were drawn and if at all the Bankers of the accused returned each of the said cheques it was because the payment was stopped by the accused. It was also the case of the accused that the accused justly and properly stopped the payment on each of the said cheques to prevent the Complainant from misusing the same.