SUFALA FINANCE PVT LTD Vs. B NARASIMHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Sufala Finance Private Limited, filed the complaint C.C. No. 679 of 1999 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience).

(2.) The case of the appellant/complainant is that the complainant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying or business relating to Hire purchase, financing, instalment purchase of various items represented by its Accountant K. Krishna Reddy, who is authorized by the complainant. It is also the case of the appellant/ complainant that the accused had approached the complainant along with the guarantor for financial assistance to purchase a Bajaj Chetak Scooter which was accordingly financed to a tune of Rs. 20,000/- on 17-12-1995 to the accused after executing the necessary documents. The accused agreed to repay the amount in fifteen monthly equal instalments, but failed to do so. After so many requests and reminders to clear the above said liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 189596 dated 20-10-1996 for an amount of Rs. 11,176/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Mahaboob Gunj Branch, Hyderabad, and the complainant presented the above said cheque with its bankers M/s. Central Bank of India, Gudimalkapur Branch, Hyderabad on 22-10-1996. The same cheque was returned dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' vide memo dated 23-10-1996. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 04-11-1996 by registered post with acknowledgement due as well as under certificate of posting. The accused received the same on 6-11-1996. The acknowledgement was received by the complainant on 9-11-1996. In spite of servicing the notices, the accused neither gave any reply nor paid the amount as demanded. The complainant submits that the accused has issued the above said cheque undertaking that the same will be honoured as and when presented for realization, contrary, the accused deliberately with a mala fide intention, to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain for himself did not maintain sufficient balance in his account rendering himself to punishment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the complaint.

(3.) The complaint was taken on file as C.C. No. 679 of 1996. On behalf of the complainant P.W. 1 was examined and Exs. P-1 to P-13 were marked. The defence of the accused is that there is no legally enforceable debt.