KARANI SPICES WARANGAL Vs. S GANAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The acquittal of the accused for an of fence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the judgment dated 1-10-2004 in C.C.No.668 of 2001 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, led the aggrieved complainant to file the present appeal.

(2.) The complainant, a registered partnership firm, doing business in sale of spices claimed the accused to have been appointed as its agent at Kothagudem and to be receiving stocks supplied by it from time to time. The sale proceeds realized by the accused from the purchasers were claimed to be with the accused on behalf of the complainant and on the demand of complainant to render accounts for the same, the accused was claimed to have drawn a cheque for Rs.4,95,381-90ps., post dated to 10-10-2001 in partial discharge of his liability. After the cheque was presented by the complainant for collection on 10-10-2001, the accused was claimed to have paid Rs.1,60,000/- in cash after settlement of account on 14-10-2001 promising to pay the balance shortly. The accused, however. instructed the banker to stop payment on which the cheque was dishonoured and returned on 29-10-2001 along with memo of the banker of the accused dated 16-10-2001 about the insufficiency of funds. The complainant claimed that the accused addressed a letter dated 18-10-2001 falsely claiming about his entitlement to Rs.1,19,477/-, as per the settled account, after the complainant received Rs.1,00,000/-, Then the complainant issued a legal notice on 1-11-2001 demanding payment of Rs.2,00,335-10ps out of the settled amount and Rs.2,220/- towards commission and postal charges. The accused issued a telegram and a reply dated 22-11-2001 with false allegations and hence, the complainant sought for punishing the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) After the offence was taken cognizance and after the accused was furnished with the copies of documents on his appearance, he was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied the offence. During trial, PW.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He examined himself as DW.1 and marked Ex.D.1.