P SITARAMA RAJU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two cases arise out of the same Calendar Case, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties to these proceedings would hereinafter be referred as they are arrayed in the trial court.

(3.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 75 of 2005 is filed by the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act' ). His case is that U. Venkata raju (A-2) and Smt. U. Dhanaiakshmi (A-3), are the partners of M/s Venkata Lakshmi constructions (A-1), and had taken a loan of rs. 2,00,000/- from him on 27. 8. 2001, and executed a promissory note in his favour on the same day, and took further loans of rs. 3,50,000/- on 11. 12. 2002 and Rs. 3,10,000/-on 18. 02. 2005 and executed promissory notes for those amounts on those dates and that a-2 had on 13. 03. 2003 drawn four cheques for rs. 50,000/- each in his favour towards part-payment of those debts, and when he presented those cheques for payment, they were returned on 15. 7. 2003 on the ground of insufficient funds and so he issued a legal notice dated 22. 7. 2003 to A-1 to A-3 calling upon them to make the payment of the amounts covered by the dishonoured cheques within fifteen days from the date of receipt of that notice but A-1 to A-3 who received the said notice on 23. 7. 2003, failed to send a reply or make the payment. After the trial court took cognizance of the case, A-1 to A-3 appeared and denied the offence. In support of his case the complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-8. In support of the case of A-1 to A3 they examined A-2 as D. W. 1 but did not adduce any documentary evidence.