A M AGENCIES Vs. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revision Cases arise out of the Judgments dated 12-04-1999 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 82 to 88 of 1998. The Criminal appeals, in turn, have been preferred against the convictions and the sentences passed by the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, in C.C.Nos.l5 to l9 of l995; 89 & 90 of l995. One set of revision cases have been filed by the accused in Criminal Revision Case Nos.302, 437 to 442 of 2000 and the other set in Criminal Revision Case Nos.767 to 773 of 1999 have been filed by the complainant. Since the parties are same in all these revision cases and common questions of law are involved, all these revision cases can be disposed of together.

(2.) The factual matrix germane for effective adjudication of the points involved may be stated thus: The Criminal complaints were filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for brevity) by the complainant-United Phosphorus Limited against the accused M/s A.M.Agencies represented by its proprietor Vasireddi Ashok Babu. The complainant is the manufacturer of pesticides and the accused is the dealer purchasing the pesticides on credit basis from the complainant company. A regular 'khata' exited between the parties, inter se,and was continued between them. In the course of dealings between the parties, the accused became indebted to the complainant company. The accused company was making payments from time to time towards the 'khata' and issued several cheques for the repayment of the said 'khata' debt. When the cheques issued by the accused company were presented by the complainant-Company before the Corporation Bank, Guntur Branch, they were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereupon, the complainant- Company issued notice to the accused Company though its Counsel calling upon the accused Company to pay the amounts covered by the cheques. The accused company having received the legal notice, failed to issue any reply nor paid the amounts covered by the cheques. Therefore, the complainant company filed seven complaints against the accused company, as aforesaid, under Section 138 of the Act.

(3.) The trial Court after conducting the trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay different fine amounts equivalent to the amounts covered by the cheques plus an amount of five thousand in each of the cases.