The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proper authorization for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the necessity to adhere to the legal provisions regarding the service of notices.

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment in C.C. No. 195/1995 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur. The Complaint in C.C. No. 195/1995 is the appellant herein.

2. The averments in the Private Complaint is under Section 200, Cr.P.C. against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was preferred by P.W.1 on behalf of a private company viz. M.M.T.C. Ltd., Chennai House, No.7, Esplanade, Chennai-108. The Complaint was taken on file after taking sworn statement of the complainant as C.C. No. 195/1995 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupur. Copies under Section 207 were furnished to the accused on his appearance of summons. When the offence was explained to the accused, she pleaded not guilty. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

The accused had availed financial assistance from the complainant to an extent of Rs.53,72,000/- in connection with their proposal for export of knitted garments. After availing the said financial assistance and drawing a sum of Rs.53,72,000/- the accused failed to execute her proposal and became liable to pay back the borrowed amount of Rs.55,69,393/- with interest. In partial discharge of the above said debt amount the accused issued a post cheque bearing No. 103657 dated 5.2.1995 for a sum of Rs.32,00,000/-. On presentation the cheque was returned as "funds insufficient". A Criminal Complaint in C.C. No. 113/1995 has been filed before the Court and the same is posted for trial on 9.6.1995. For the remaining amount the accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 104157 dated 25.3.1995 drawn on the State Bank of Mysore, Tirupur Branch for a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/-. The complainant's Tirupur Branch presented the said cheque on the same date through their bankers viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Main Branch, Tirupur, which when presented was dishonoured and returned by their bankers (State Bank of Mysore) with remarks "Exceeds Arrangements". The complainant got the intimation of return of dishonoured cheque on 27.3.1995. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 30.3.1995, which was acknowledged by the accused. Again for the balance amount, the accused had made a cheque bearing No.104156 dated 30.3.1995 drawn on the State Bank of Mysore, Tirupur Branch, for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. The complainant's Tirupur Branch presented the said cheque on 4.4.1995 through their bankers viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Main Branch, Tirupur, which when presented was dishonoured and returned by their bankers State Bank of Mysore on 4.4.1995 with remarks "Exceeds Arrangements". The complainant got the intimation of return of dishonoured cheque on 5.4.1995. The complainant issued a legal notice of demand dated 12.04.1995. The postal receipt is produced by the complainant. The accused has not paid the cheque amount either within 15 days after the receipt of the notices or even till date towards the dishonoured cheques. Hence, the complaint. Towards the debt, the accused had issued demand draft for Rs.50,000/- dated 22.2.1995 and another demand draft dated 7.4.1995 for Rs.3,00,000/- and has also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in Indian Overseas Bank, Tirupur Branch, on 28.4.1995.

3. On the side of the complainant, the complainant was examined as P.W.1, the Assistant Manager of the Bank was examined as P.W.2 and one V. Suresh was examined as P.W.3. Ex.P.1 to P.18 were marked on the side of the complainant. One nirmala was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked on the side of the accused.

4. Thiru. Sridharan, as P.W.1, would depose that he is working as a Branch Manager in the branch office of the complainant's company viz. M.M.T.C. Ltd. at Tirupur and that the accused is running a knittd garments factory in the name of M/s Panax and the accused is the sole proprietrix of the said company. For the purpose of exporting the garments to the complainant's company has advanced a loan of Rs.53,72,000/- to the accused. Ex.P.1 is the xerox cop