Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In the memorandum of appeal, appellant has submitted that, trial court did not apply its judicial mind to the case and the contradiction brought out in the evidence Cross-examination and the case of the respondent was ignored by the trial Court. The explanations offered by the appellant in so far as non replying to the legal notice was again ignored. Appellant was accused No.2 and respondent No.2 is the accused No.1, respondent No.3 is the accused No.3 and respondent No.1 was the complainant before the trial Court. The trial Court has not at all considered that Ex.P1 Board of Resolution is not valid since as per the Ex.P14 Memorandum of Articles and Articles of Association of the complainant company, there are three directors in the complaint company namely Jaikumar, Yashaswini Jai Kumar and Poonam. However, the Ex P1 was signed by only two Directors i.e., Jay Kumar.S and Purnamal Tulsyan. Hence, the Power of Attorney of the complainant company is not at all authorised person and the complaint itself is not maintainable. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the accused No.2. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction against accused No.2 is not maintainable. Ex.P5 cheque dated 25.02.2015 is outdated cheque since the said cheque presented to the bank for encashment in the first week of June 2015 and this was not considered by the trial Court at the initial stage and later when the appellant has taken such stand, the complainant advanced the case posted for judgment and produced the documents and the trial Court has erroneously considered the same. Ex.P5 and P6 cheques are not belong to the account of the accused No.1/ respondent No.2 and the cheques belong to the personal account of the appellant and hence he is not liable for the transaction of the accused No.1 firm. Cheque issued by the appellant is from his personal account and the cheque has been misplaced by the complainant. The appellant is neither a Director nor a Partner of the company. The cheques are issued to the complainant by the appellant towards the advance amount to have building on rental basis, but the complainant has not left out the building and postponed to return the cheques. The appellant has not issued the cheque voluntarily for discharge of legally enforceable debt and hence the provisions of Section 138 of N.i.Act will not attract. The appellant is not at all the partner of the accused No.1 company. When the liability of the appellant could not be established the presumption saying that the cheques were issued for purchasing of poly bags with the complainant cannot be established against this appellant. The trial Court has not at all discussed the citations referred by the appellant. The trial Court has gravely erred in drawing presumption in favour of the complainant towards legally dischargeable debt in the absence of any material to prove the transaction. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is perverse. For the aforesaid reasons, appellant has prayed to interfere into the impugned judgment and order and set aside the same.

12. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant has presented the cheque issued by the accused No.2 well within the period of three months. It is his contention that the bank authority have issued the endorsement for dishonouring the cheque for 'insufficient funds' but not for stale cheque. Hence, the cheque is not outdated cheque.

13. On reading the plaint averments, it is clear that the complainant has presented the cheque bearing No.225925 dated 25.02.2015 Ex.P.5 in the 3 rd week of March 2015 and the same was returned on 16.03.2015 as funds insufficient. Therefore, the complainant has rightly presented the said cheque Ex P5 within the period of three months and hence the Ex P5 is not outdated cheque. It is further evident from the averments made in the complaint that he informed the accused persons about the dishonour of the cheque and inturn the accused requested the complainant to present both the cheques Ex.P5 and P6 in the first week of June 2015 and therefore, the complainant presented the said cheque in the first week of June 2015. Further, the State Bank of India, SME branch, Rajajinagar Industrial Estate Branch, Bengaluru issued letter stating that Ex.P5 and P6 cheques presented to the bank on 15.05.2015 within 3 months from the date of the cheque. Further, on perusal of the endorsement, it is clear that the cheque was not dishonoured for stale cheque but it was dishonoured for 'funds insufficient'. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused No.2 that Ex.P5 and 6 are outdated cheques, cannot be accepted.