LAWS(APH)-2014-11-7

REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD Vs. REDDY PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED

Decided On November 05, 2014
Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad Appellant
V/S
REDDY PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 24.04.2009 in C.C.No.343 of 2004 passed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I Act), the complainant preferred the instant Criminal Appeal.

(2.) ON factual side, the case of Complainant Company is that it is engaged in manufacture and sale of bulk drugs, finished formulations etc., in India and abroad. Whereas A.1 is the public limited company carrying business in purchase and sale of active pharmaceutical ingredients (products), A.2 is its Managing Director. A.1 Company was appointed as Commercial Delcredere agent of complainant for one year from 01.04.2003 for sale of complainants products to customers in Northern India. The further case of complainant is that it supplied products from time to time on credit against the invoices and A.1 was due a sum of Rs.69,03,380/ -. A.1 issued 14 cheques all dated 06.01.2004 towards part discharge of the debt. A.2 signed on the cheques on behalf of A.1 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Hyderabad. The complainant deposited the cheques for collection through their bankers Standard Chartered Bank, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad. However, all the cheques were returned dishonoured with endorsement payment stopped by drawer. Hence, the complainant issued a registered legal notice dated 17/21.01.2004 to A.1 demanding payment of the amounts covered by the cheques. For which, A.1 issued reply notice dated 02.02.2004 with false allegations. Hence, the complainant filed the private complaint in C.C.No.343 of 2004 in respect of two cheques bearing Nos.792483 and 792484 dated 06.01.2004 for Rs.7,68,834/ - and Rs.78,980/ - respectively, out of 14 cheques.

(3.) THE judgment shows that during trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.17 were marked on behalf of complainant. DW.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 to D.23 were marked on behalf of accused.