MAFTLAL FINANCE CO LTD Vs. NOBLE TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the point involved and the parties in all the Criminal Appeals are one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

(2.) These appeals are directed against separate judgments dated 28.2.2001 delivered in various Calendar Cases, by which, the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, found the accused-respondent not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (for short "the Act"). Brief facts of the case are that the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to purchase CEILO GLE MT CAR under Hire Purchase Scheme and agreed to repay the loan with interest in 24 equal monthly instalments. In pursuance of the same, the accused, being the proprietor of the Noble Travels, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, executed Hire Purchase Agreement and relevant documents with the complainant and issued ten cheques bearing No.704024, dated 4.3.1998, No.704025, dated 4.4.19918, No.704026, dated 4.5.1998, No.704027, dated 4.6.1998, No.704028, dated 4.7.1998, No.704030, dated 4.9.1998, No.704031, dated 4.10.1998, No.704032, dated 4.11.1998, No.704033, dated 4.12.1998 and No.704034, dated 4.1.1999 for Rs.22,123/- each respectively. When these cheques were presented in the bank, they were returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Then, the complainant, sent a legal notice to the business place of the accused, but it was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement "Refused" and the notice which was sent to his house address was also returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement "Addressee Out of Station, Addressee Continuously 7 days Absent". Hence, after following the procedure prescribed under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant filed complaints, which were numbered as C.C.Nos.1015, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1022, 2253, 2254, 2255 of 1998, 187 and 315 of 1999. The learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on trial, found the accused-respondent not guilty of the charge punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, acquitted him. As stated supra, against the judgments dated 28.2.2001 delivered in these Calendar Cases, the ten Criminal Appeals are preferred.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, the case as pleaded in Crl.A.No.845 of 2001 shall be referred to. Originally, one Sri T.V.Rajeevan, learned counsel, was appearing for the accused-respondent. However, when these matters came up for hearing before me, he reported no instructions, and hence, it necessitated this Court to direct the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant to send notice to the respondent. The notice, which was sent by the learned counsel for the complainant, was returned unserved, and hence, on 28.8.2006, this Court directed the learned counsel for the complainant to take out notice to the accused through substitute service. Pursuant to which, the learned counsel filed proof of service establishing the fact that the notice was published in "Deccan Chronicle" on 2.10.2006. In spite of this fact, the accused has not chosen put in appearance either in person or through his counsel, and hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of these appeals after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant. Heard Sri M.S.N.Prasad, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.