GREAVES LIMITED Vs. LEO ELECTRONICS ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though notice is served and the respondents are appearing through a counsel, the learned counsel w+w uhsenl. These appeals are filed aggrieved by the judgments dated 28.06.2000 passed in CC Nos.77,78,79,80,81 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad wherein the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused (respondents herein) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). As the parties and the point involved] in all these appeals are one and the same, they are being' disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant, who is the appellant in all these appeals.is M/s. Greaves Limited engaged in the manufacture of diesel engines. It is stated that both the parties entered into; an agreement wherein the complainant-appellant had agreed to supply diesel Generator sets to the accused and accordingly the complainant-company supplied 18 Diesel Generator sets, for which the accused issued five cheques. On presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured by the bank for the reason of 'insufficient funds'. The complainant, after following thr procedure prescribed under Section 138 of the Act, filed private complaints against the accused.

(3.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases 'and on hearing both parses, ths Court below dismissed the said complaints holding that the complainant-appellant has not proved the case against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by ths same, the present appealis have been filed by the appellant. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Vcdula S'rinivas, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-appellant in all tiiese cases contended that when once the complainant corncs forward and files a case stating that the cheques were bounced on account of insufficiency of funds, the burden is on the respondents to establish t:he fact as to whether the said bouncing was due to insufficiency of funds or otherwise. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 139 of the Act and submitted that it is sufficient to state that the said cheques were issued in lieu of legally enforceable debts, and when the complainant has established the same trie burden is automatically shifted on the respondent and the respondent has to rebut the said presumption. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the Court below drawn an adverse inference; against the complainant obseiving that it is the complainant-appellant, who has to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt by preponderance of probabilities. The other submission would be that the complaint was lodged by one S.Jayaraman, who was at the relevant point! of time working as Assistant Commercial Officer in the complainant company and there is no proper or valid authorization authorizing him to represent the complainant-company and as such the complaints are noi maintainable.