VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. INNOVATIONS CHIRALA A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of nine Criminal Appeals are filed by the Complainant M/s. Videocon International Limited, Represented by its Accounts Officer, Khem Chand Khatri. The Respondents 1 and 2 are the Accused 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2. They are M/s. Innovations, Represented by its Proprietor Anjan Kumar and also Anjan Kumar in his personal capacity. The complainant filed 9 private complainants against A-1 and A-2 in the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In C.C. No.114 of 2000, the subject matter is three cheques of the value of Rs.40,000/- each. In C.C. No.120 of 2000, the subject matter is three cheques of the value of Rs.40,000/- each. In C.C. No.122 of 2000, the subject matter is three cheques of the value of Rs.35,000/- each. In C.C. No.118 of 2000, the subject matter is three cheques of the value of Rs.40,000/- each. In C.C. No.115 of 2000, the subject matter is three cheques of the value of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.42,475/- and Rs.42,475/- respectively. In C.C. No.119 of 2000, the subject matter is three cheques of the value of Rs.40,000/- each. In C.C. No.121 of 2000, the subject matter is three cheques of the value of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.45,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively. In C.C. No.113 of 2000, the subject matter is three cheques of the value of Rs.40,000/- each. In C.C. No.123 of 2000, the subject matter is three cheques of the value of Rs.40,000/- each. When the complainant presented all the above 27 cheques for encashment, the banker of the accused dishonoured those cheques for want of sufficient funds as per cheque return memos dated 22-12-1998 respectively. Thereupon the complainant got issued legal notices to A-1 and A-2 on 30-12-1998 in accordance with Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short, ?the Act?). A-1 and A-2 received the said notices on 06-01-1999. But A-1 and A-2 did not choose to give any reply to those notices. The complainant filed all the relevant documents in the lower Court in all the cases, like cheques, dishonour memos, legal notices, the postal receipts and postal acknowledgments of the accused. After trial in which PW.1 was examined on behalf of the complainant in all the cases, and all the documents were marked on behalf of the complainant, the lower Court found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offences under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted them and sentenced A-1 to fine of Rs.5,000/- in each case and A-2 to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.5,000/- in each case.

(2.) QUESTIONING the said convictions and sentences passed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, A-1 and A-2 filed Criminal Appeals before the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2370 of 2004, 2372 of 2004, 2375 of 2004, 2377 of 2004, 2378 of 2004, 2379 of 2004, 2380 of 2004, 2381 of 2004 and 2382 of 2004. The VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgments dated 23-07-2004 allowed all the Appeals setting aside the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court against A-1 and A-2. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed this batch of Appeals against the acquittals recorded by the lower Appellate Court.

(3.) SECTION 142 of the Act has no bearing on the aspect of deciding whether a power attorney holder is competent in law to present the complaint on behalf of a company. SECTION 142 of the Act deals with the case of a "payee"/Accused and not a case of the "Drawer"/Complainant. The lower Court erred in adverting to SECTION 142 of the Act on this aspect of the matter.