Bangalore District Court
Southern Batteries Pvt Ltd vs New George Auto Electricals on 25 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 25th day of January , 2019
Present: Smt Shirin Javeed Ansari -BA.LL.B(Hon's)LL.M
XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
C.C.No.8462/2018
Complainant: Southern Batteries Pvt Ltd,
A company registered under the
Companies Act
having registered office at
# 328, Bommasandra - Jigani Link
road
Ind.Area, Jigani, Anekal Taluk
Bangalore 562 106.
Represented by its Authrorized
Representative Mr.V.R.Prakash.
(By Sri. AK - Advocate )
- Vs -
Accused: 1.New George Auto Electricals
No.59, Vembakottai Road
Sattur, Virudhunagar 626703
Tamil Nadu.
Represented by its Propreitor.
2. Mr.B.Raja,
Proprietor
New George Auto Electricals
No.59, Vembakottai Road
Sattur, Virudhunagar 626703
Tamil Nadu.
(By AFN - Advocate )
2 C.C.No.8462/2018
Offence complained of: U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
Plea of accused: Pleads not guilty.
Final Order: Accused are acquitted.
Date of Judgment: 25.01.2019
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.PC
This is a complaint filed by the complainant
u/s.200Cr.P.C.against the accused person for the
offence punishable u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act
(Herein after called as the N.I.Act for reference)
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant
are as under:
The complainant is the manufacturer , supplier
and dealer of batteries and other electrical items .
The accused No.2 is the proprietor of the accused
No.1 and responsible for the conduct of the business
of the firm. The accused was engaged in the business
transaction with the complainant in buying the
batteries manufactured by the complainant at
Bangalore.
3 C.C.No.8462/2018
3. It is further submitted that, against the
supply of batteries, the accused issued cheque
bearing No. 001031 dt.7.3.2014 for a sum of
Rs.6,71,907/- . The accused gave assurance to the
complainant that the said cheque will be honored on
its presentation . The complainant presented the
said cheque with his banker i.e Axis Bank, Electronic
City, Bangalore and the same returned dishonored
for the reason "Funds Insufficient" on 18.3.2014. It is
submitted that the accused deliberately issued the
cheque in question towards discharge of liability by
not maintaining sufficient fund in his account. Hence,
committed an offence punishable u/s.138 Negotiable
Instrument Act
4. It is further submitted that, the complainant
issued the legal notice to the accused on 25.3.2014
through RPAD . It is further submitted that, a letter
dt.16th April, 2014 has been given to the postal
department requesting for the delivery status of the
legal notice.
4 C.C.No.8462/2018
5. It is further submitted that, the accused
replied to the notice through e mail dt.10th April ,
2014. It is further submitted that, the accused with
the knowledge of having insufficient funds in his
account issued the cheque with a dishonest intention ,
hence, committed an offence punishable u/s.138
Negotiable Instrument Act . Hence, the complainant
prayed to convict the accused and to award
compensation in favour of the complainant . Hence,
this complaint.
6. The complainant has lead his pre
summoning evidence and has filed his affidavit in
lieu of Sworn Statement. Prima-facie a case has been
made out against the accused and he has been
summoned vide order of this court.
7. The accused appeared before this court and
is enlarged on bail . The substance of accusation has
been read over the accused pleaded not guilty and
claims to be tried.
8. In his post summoning evidence the
complainant has examined himself as PW 1 and filed
5 C.C.No.8462/2018
his affidavit, wherein, he has reiterated the averments
made in the complaint and got marked the documents
at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3.
9. The incriminating circumstances found in the
case of prosecution against the accused is read over
and explained to the accused in Tamil with the help
of a translator and vice versa his answers have been
recorded and the accused denied the same. The
accused has not lead any oral or documentary
evidence.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the
materials on record.
11. Upon hearing arguments, the following
points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant
proves that the accused has
committed an offence
punishable u/s. 138 Negotiable
Instrument Act ?
2. What order.
12. My answers to the above points are as
under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
6 C.C.No.8462/2018
Point No2 : As per final order for the
Following,
REASONS
13. Point NO.1: The complainant is the
manufacturer , supplier and dealer of batteries and
other electrical items . The accused No.2 is the
proprietor of the accused No.1 and responsible for
the conduct of the business of the firm. The accused
was engaged in the business transaction with the
complainant in buying the batteries manufactured by
the complainant at Bangalore.
14. It is further submitted that, against the
supply of batteries, the accused issued cheque
bearing No. 001031 dt.7.3.2014 for a sum of
Rs.6,71,907/- . The accused gave assurance to the
complainant that the said cheque will be honored on
its presentation . The complainant presented the
said cheque with his banker i.e Axis Bank, Electronic
City, Bangalore and the same returned dishonored
for the reason "Funds Insufficient" on 18.3.2014. It is
submitted that the accused deliberately issued the
7 C.C.No.8462/2018
cheque in question towards discharge of liability by
not maintaining sufficient fund in his account. Hence,
committed an offence punishable u/s.138 Negotiable
Instrument Act
15. It is further submitted that, the complainant
issued the legal notice to the accused on 25.3.2014
through RPAD . It is further submitted that, a letter
dt.16th April, 2014 has been given to the postal
department requesting for the delivery status of the
legal notice.
16. It is further submitted that, the accused
replied to the notice through e mail dt.10th April ,
2014. It is further submitted that, the accused with
the knowledge of having insufficient funds in his
account issued the cheque with a dishonest intention ,
hence, committed an offence punishable u/s.138
Negotiable Instrument Act . Hence, the complainant
prayed to convict the accused and to award
compensation in favour of the complainant .
17. In support of the case, the complainant has
produced the documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3.
8 C.C.No.8462/2018
Ex.P.1 is the complaint. Ex.P.2 is the Board
Resolution, ExP3 is the cheque in question bearing
No001031 for Rs.6,71,907/- drawn on City Union
Bank.Ex.P.3(a) is the signature of the accused.
18. It is the defence of the accused that there
exists no legally enforceable debt or other liability .
The complainant has filed a false case against the
accused and tried to foist false liability on the
accused. Except the complaint, Board Resolution,
and the cheque, the complainant has not produced
any other documents before this court . Absolutely ,
there exists no liability on the part of the accused to
make payment to the complainant . The complainant
has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, the accused prayed to dismiss the complaint .
19. On perusal of the material available on
record especially, the oral and documentary evidence
produced by the complainant it is found that the
complainant G.Muniraju is examined as PW 1 before
the court and he has produced the Board Resolution
which came to be marked at Ex.P.2. He has further
9 C.C.No.8462/2018
produced the cheque bearing No. 001031 dt.7.3.2014
for Rs.6,71,907/- drawn on City Union bank. But
except these three documents, ie.Ex.P.1 to P.3 the
complainant has not produced any other documents
before this court. . The complainant has not at all
presented the cheque return memo to show as to for
what reason the cheque came to be dishonored. More
importantly the complainant has not at all produced
any invoices or bills to show that there was
transaction entered into between the complainant and
the accused . Absolutely there is no any document on
behalf of the complainant to show that the accused
purchased battery from complainant company. Mere
production of the cheque in question and the Board
Resolution and getting these 2 documents marked
before the court is not sufficient . The complainant is
required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt
by producing all the documents before the court to
prove that the ingredients of Sec.138of Negotiable
Instrument Act are attracted in the present case. The
complainant has not at all produced any other
10 C.C.No.8462/2018
documents except Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. The complainant
has also not produced any demand notice which he
alleges that he has issued to the accused. The non
production of the cheque return memo and the
demand notice and any document to show that there
is service of notice to the accused before filing the
present case, gives an opportunity to the court to
draw an adverse inference against the complainant .
The complainant has not produced any documents to
show that he has complied the ingredients of
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act . Non
compliance of the same, clearly shows that the
complainant is not entitled for the presumption
enumerated in the provisions of Negotiable Instrument
Act. The complainant has absolutely failed to prove the
transaction entered into between the complainant and
the accused . Therefore, the court is of the opinion
that the complainant has failed to prove his case
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, in view of this the
complainant is not entitled for any compensation and
the accused deserves to be Acquitted. Hence, in view
11 C.C.No.8462/2018
of this and in view of the discussion made supra, I
answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
20. Point No.2: In view of the reasons stated
and discussed above, the complainant has miserably
failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the
offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable
Instruments Act. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following :
ORDER
Exercising the powers conferred upon this court u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused are hereby Acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act.
The bail bond of the accused and that of his surety if any stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her , corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of January, 2019).
(SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI ) XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
12 C.C.No.8462/2018ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Muniraju G.
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint. Ex.P.2 : Board Resolution, Ex.P3 : Cheque . Ex.P3(a) : Signature of the accused.
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
-Nil-
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
-Nil-
( SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI ) XXV A.C.M.M.,BANGALORE.13 C.C.No.8462/2018 14 C.C.No.8462/2018 15 C.C.No.8462/2018