THULJA FINANCE URAVAKONDA Vs. A V RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The de facto complainant in C.C. No.42/1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Uravakonda, filed this appeal, aggrieved by the order, dated 20.1.2000, whereby the accused-lst respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The appellant filed a private complaint alleging that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,55,001.00 for his business needs and agreed to repay the amount with the interest and the terms and conditions stipulated in the promissory note executed by him. In response to the demands made by the appellant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 64747 and another cheque bearing No. 64748, both dated 14.3.1998 for Rs.50,000/- each, both drawn on Vysya Bank. The appellant presented the cheques in its bank. The Bank returned them unpaid for want of sufficient funds. Thereafter, appellant got issued a notice. The accused refused to receive it. He also did not pay the amount demanded. Hence, appellant filed the private complaint. On behalf of the appellant, three witnesses were examined and seventeen documents were marked. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record dismissed the complaint by its judgment, dated 20.1.2000, inter alia on the ground that P.W.I issued the notice in his individual capacity but not on behalf of the appellant-finance firm, and that he was not properly authorized to represent the company. Questioning the legality and correctness of the said judgment, the de facto complainant filed the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the accused borrowed the amount from the appellant-firm of which P.W.I is the Managing Partner, that there were no personal transactions between the accused and P.W. 1 except the transaction in question, that only to discharge the debt borrowed by him the accused issued the dishonoured cheques in question, that the burden is on the accused to show that the cheques were not issued in the discharge of a legally enforceable debt, that the lower Court having observed that the notice was issued to the accused within time and the complaint was filed within time ought to have convicted the accused, and that as P.W. 1 is no other than the Managing Partner of the appellant-firm no authorization was necessary to file the complaint. Learned Counsel relied upon some decisions which will be referred to at appropriate place. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served accused is not present and there is no representation on his behalf. I have perused the entire record.