VOLTAS LTD Vs. VIDHARBHA VEHICLES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When these Criminal Appeals were taken up for admission, this Court was pleased to issue notices to the respondents 1 to 3 and the office acknowledgement establishes that the notices were served on them. In spite of service of notice, the respondents have not put in their appearance. Subsequently, having heard Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, this Court came to the conclusion that there is a prime facie case in favour of the appellant and directed the learned counsel for the appellant to cause fresh service of notice to the respondents. Accordingly, the learned counsel took out notices, which were served on the respondents on 2.8.2006, but they have not chosen to put in their appearance either in person or through their counsel. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of Ihese appeals after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 4th respondent.

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3, who are the Directors of 1st respondent- company, issued four cheques in discharge of debt. When those cheques were bounced, the complainant i.e. the appellant herein filed two cases i.e. C.C.No.78 of 1999 and C.C.No.83 of 1999 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and as the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents-accused, the complainant preferred these Criminal Appeals. As the point involved in both the appeals is one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the trial Court.

(3.) The complainant-company is linvolved in the manufacture of refrigerators, etc., A1 is an authorized dealer of the complainant, and A2 and A3 are the Directors of A1. During the course of business, the complainant supplied refrigerators to A1 from time to time on credit basis and thus, there is a running account between the parties. As there was an outstanding amount to be paid to the complainant, A2 and A3, on behalf of A1, issued four cheques bearing Noa.727414, 727417, 727418 and 727420, dated 31.7.1998 for Rs.26,118/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 1,04.585.80 respectively drawn on Nagpur Nagarik Sahakari Bank Limited. When the complainant presented those cheques in State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Hyderabad, they were returned with an endorsement "Account Expires". Pursuant to the bouncing of the cheques, the complainant issued a notice, dated 27.11.1998 as provided under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity "the Act). The respondents-accused, though received notices, did not choose to issue any reply notice, and hence, the complainant filed C.C.No.78 of 1999 against the bouncing of cheques bearing Nos.727417, 727418 and 727420 and C.C.No.83 of 1999 against the bouncing of cheque bearing No.727414. During the course of trial, the complainant got examined its Deputy Manager (Legal) as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20. On behalf of the accused, A2, who is one of the Directors of A1, was examined as DW1 and Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. The Court below, on the strength of the evidence, framed the following points: