Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The complainant by name M/s Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd., has filed this complaint against the accused by name Sri.Ravi, for the offence punishable U/Sec.138-A of N.I. Act.

02. It is the case of the complainant that:-

The complainant company doing poultry business by providing day old broiler chicks to farmer for growing them into broiler and same will be lifted by the company itself by give growing charges. The accused have been the contract farmer under the name and style Ravi Poultry Farm, which is situated at SF No.77/2, Gopalahalli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. In view of the agreement entered into between the complainant and accused on 11-11-2009, by agreeing all terms and conditions and known to each other since from 2009, the accused have taken 7038 chicks on 15-03-2010 for growing them into a full grown broiler birds and giving back to the company. As recorded by the accused and the company person record daily, upto on 24-04-2010 total mortality of birds is 1099 numbers. After mortality record the balance birds should be 5939 numbers in accused poultry shed. As the complainant lifted the total 3406 birds on 20-04-2010 and 24-04-2010, after this the balance 2533 birds should have been there in the accused poultry shed, but no birds were left in the shed. At that time the accused have confirmed the company that he do not know about missing of birds. The complainant has told the accused that they will lodge a complaint against the accused. For that, the accused has convinced the company not to lodge the complaint, instead, accused undertake to pay the total value of the birds, feed and medicine. Then the accused issued a cheque bearing No.002326 dated 06-05-2010 for Rs.2,23,679-00 in favour of complainant, drawn on HDFC Bank. On 06-05-2010 the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment, but, the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement as "Account Closed" on 07-05-2010. Later the same was intimated to the accused on 17-05-2010, but the accused has not paid the said cheque amount. Hence, on 22-05-2010, the complainant got issued legal notice through RPAD and UCP calling upon him to comply with the demand made in the legal notice and the same has been received by the accused. Inspite of service of the legal notice within stipulated time, the accused did not repay the amount, but he has given reply to the said notice on 08-06-2010. So, the complainant is before this Court with this complaint against the accused.

07. Here, it is the specific defence of the accused that, the complainant company has not supplied 7038 broiler chicks, but supplied only 6000. At the time of entering into the agreement, the complainant company obtained the signatures of the accused on some printed papers without explaining the contents of the said papers. Moreover, before supplying the broiler chicks, the complainant company also obtained two signed blank cheques from the accused. Out of 6,000 broiler chicks supplied by the complainant company, 1987 chicks were dead, as they were not good quality. The accused has intimated the same to the complainant. The representative of the complainant company came to the poultry farm of the accused and noted the fact regarding the death of broiler chicks and its counts. After that, the said person assured the accused that, the necessary documents will be furnished to him regarding the death of broiler chicks. But they have not furnished any such document. Moreover, after the birds were weighing different weight, the complainant company lifted 4013 broiler chicks in the absence of accused. When the accused approached for the payment of those lifted chicks which was agreed between themselves, at that time, the complainant assured to furnish the weight of those birds and also for payment of money. But later the complainant company refused to do so. At that time serious talks were exchanged in between them and the accused told that, he would lodge a complaint against the complainant company for the fraud played by it. So, the complainant company assured to make payment by furnishing necessary documents. But later, the complainant company issued a frivolous notice. The accused is not due to the complainant company. But the complainant company itself is due for a sum of Rs.3,00,975-00 at the approximate rate of Rs.5-00 per kg of birds. This would be the defence taken by the accused while giving reply to the notice issued by the advocate of the complainant.