SUNRISE OLEO CHEMICALS LTD Vs. K M ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners stand convicted by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad by his judgment dated 19-7-1999 in C. C. No. 902 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- by the 1st petitioner and to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and further to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- by the 2nd petitioner with the necessary default sentences. On appeal, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by his judgment dated 26-6-2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 1999 while confirming the conviction, modified the sentences of fine by sentencing each to pay to Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/-.

(2.) The 1st respondent herein laid a complaint against the revision petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging inter alia that the 2nd accused being the Managing Director of the 1st accused company having purchased electrical and hardware material from the complainant company under various purchase orders, and received the material under various invoices dated 28-6-1997, 2-7-1997, 7-7-1997, 10-7-1997, 11-7-1997 and 12-7-1997, after having paid an amount of Rs. 37,000/- in two instalments did not pay the balance sum of Rs. 3,82,454-79 Ps. and that after repeated demands the 2nd accused issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 2,02,000/- drawn on the account pertaining to M/s. Sunrise Oil Mills Private Limited and when the same was dishonoured he got a notice dated 9-12-1997, issued and when the same was returned unserved with the endorsement "no person was residing in the above address for the last seven days", he presented it again on 28-1-1998 and again it was dishonoured on the premise of "insufficient funds", and that when he got another legal notice dated 9-2-1998 issued the accused having received the notices on 11-2-1998, failed to pay the cheque amount and thereby committed the offence. The plea of the accused was one of denial.

(3.) At the time of trial one witness was examined on the side of the complainant and the document Ex. P1 to Ex. P12 were got marked. None was examined on the side of the accused but Ex. D1 and D2 were got marked.