- (1.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent herein/complainant had filed a case in S.T.C. No. 1460 of 2007, on the file of Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, against the revision petitioners/second accused and nine others stating that the complainant is the dealer and supplier of iron and steel. The first accused is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is represented by the second accused, who is looking after the affairs of the company at Chennai. The accused 2 to 5 are the Directors of the 1st accused company, as such, they are incharge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the first accused company. As per the instructions of the accused 2 to 5, this complainant had supplied the material as per the orders placed by the accused 2, 6, 9 and 10. The accused 7 and 8 are the persons who had coordinated the business transaction on behalf of the first accused company. The second accused with the consultation of the accused 6, 9 and 10 placed orders on various dates for supply of goods. In pursuance of such an order, the goods were supplied on various dates, i.e., 17.7.2001, 2.2.2002, and 5.2.2002, as per delivery challan and invoice was raised for a sum Rs. 2,29,358/-, Rs. 2,49,228/-, Rs. 1,84,016/-, aggregating to a sum of Rs. 6,62,602/-. The cheques were issued by the second accused on behalf of the first accused company and signed by the accused 9 and 10, as authorized signatories. The cheques were presented to the complainant's bank for collection and the same was returned on 28.10.2003, with an endorsement "exceeds arrangements". Hence, the complainant sent a legal notice on 31.10.2003 and the same was received by some of the accused and some of the accused did not receive the notice. Even after the receipt of the legal notice, the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor sent any reply. Hence, the case has been filed under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused.
(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty and hence, the case was proceeded with. On the side of the complainant, one witness was examined as P.W.1 and 15 documents were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-15, viz., Ex. P1-registration certificate of complainant firm dated 12.7.1990, Exhibit P-2-partnership deed dated 11.6.1995, Exhibit P-3-invoice dated 2.8.2001, Exhibit P-4-delivery challan dated 2.8.2001, Exhibit P-5-covering letter dated 13.9.2001, Exhibit P-6-Dena bank cheque No. 658950 for a sum of Rs. 1,67,328/-, dated 25.5.2003, Exhibit P-7-Dena Bank cheque No. 658943 for a sum of Rs. 2,46,339/-, dated 25.5.2003, Exhibit P-8-Dena Bank cheque No. 658949 for a sum of Rs. 4,83,298/- dated 25.5.2003, Exhibit P-9-return memos dated 28.10.2003, Exhibit P-10-debit advice dated 29.10.2003, Exhibit P-11-legal notice by complainant counsel dated 31.10.2003, Exhibit P-12-acknowledgment cards, Exhibit P-13-returned cover from R. Krishnan, Exhibit P-14-Minutes of Meeting between complainant company and A-1 Company, Exhibit P-15-copy of the Annual return from A-1 company dated 7.8.2001. On the side of the defence, 9 witnesses were examined, viz., D.W.1-R.V. Raghavan, D.W.2-M.K. Jothi, D.W.3-Senthil Kumar, D.W.4-Jayant Bhattacharjee, D.W.5-G. Ramesh, D.W.6-Rajkumar Menon, D.W.7-Jothi Nathan, D.W.8-Francis Xavier and D.W.9-Saikat Basu and 24 documents were marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-24, viz., Exhibit D-1 -reply notice by A-2 counsel, Exhibit D-2-reply notice by A5 counsel, Exhibit D-3-certified copy of 18(1) settlement, Exhibit D-4-copy of resignation letter of A-2 sent to A-1 company, Kolkatta, dated 12.9.2003, Exhibit D-5-statement of account by Dena Bank for the period from 1.1.2002 to 14.4.2008, Exhibit D-6-letter to Provident Fund Office dated 19.6.2008, Exhibit D-7-certified copy of complaint before the Magistrate at Kolkatta, Exhibit D-8-letter by counsel of A-1 Company to A-2, Exhibit D-9-letter by A1 company to ROC dated 10.6.2008, Exhibit D-10-General Power of Attorney dated 27.7.1999, Exhibit D-11-salary slip of accused G. Ramesh, Exhibit D-12-reliving order of accused G. Ramesh, dated 11.9.2003, Exhibit D-13-Memorandum and Articles of Association of A-1 company, Exhibit D-14-relieving order of M. Rajkumar Menon, Exhibit D-15-report by the Commercial Tax Officer regarding A-1 company dated 31.7.2008, Exhibit D-16-letter from Jayant Bhattacharjee to Central Excise, dated 12.9.2003, Exhibit D-17-show cause notice by central excise dated 5.11.2003, Exhibit D-18-copy of resignation letter of A-2 sent to A-1 company, Kolkatta, dated 12.9.2003, Exhibit D-19-letter from counsel of A-2 to A-2, dated 1.8.2008, Exhibit D-20-letter by counsel of A-2 to ROC, Kolkatta, dated 21.7.2008, Exhibit D-21 -letter by A.M. Singh to counsel of A-2 dated 22.7.2008, Exhibit D-22-certified copy of order in Crl. R.C. No. 109 of 2006 against M.P. No. 1442 of 2006 in C.C. No. 12103 of 2003, dated 29.1.2007, Exhibit D-23-document showing the Directorship of Saikat Basu, Exhibit D-24-letter from Deputy Registrar of Companies AM Singh to A2 counsel, dated 8.8.2008.
(3.) P.W.1 had adduced evidence that when the cheques had been presented in the bank, it was returned on 28.10.2003 with an endorsement "Exceeds Arrangement". Subsequently, the legal notice has been issued through his lawyer on 31.10.2003. In order to prove the contention, he had marked returned cheque, return memo, debit advice, legal notice, acknowledgment card. P.W.1 had further stated that his company was registered under the Companies Act and that the accused company was also registered under the Companies Act. Accused 2 to 5 are Directors of the Company and they are incharge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the first accused company. The orders were placed by the accused 6, 9 and 10 and the accused 7 and 8 coordinated the business transaction. P.W.1 further stated that his Company had supplied material on various dates on credit basis. In order to discharge the legally enforceable debt, the cheques have been issued by the accused. To substantiate the said transactions, he had marked the delivery challan and invoice.;