The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of complying with legal procedures, including the presentation of complaints through authorized representatives and the burden of proof on the complainant to establish the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

The complainant, who has lost his all the three cases in C.C. No.6223 to 6225 of 1995 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is the appellant herein in all the three Appeals. The Complaints were preferred under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. C.C.No.6223/1995: In the complaint in C.C. No.6223 of 1995, the complainant would state that the second accused is one of the directors of the first accused-Company and the first accused-accused was having business transaction with the complainant-Company and that in the said business transaction, the accused owes money to the complainant-Company and in order to discharge the said debt, the accused had issued a cheque dated 10.05.1993, for a sum of Rs.50,000/- bearing cheque No. 114402 and another cheque dated 28.05.1993 bearing No.114406 for Rs.30,772.35/- drawn in Bank of India in favour of the complainant. When the above said cheques were presented before the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai, they were returned by the Bank with an endorsement that "it exceeds arrangement" on 09.11.1993. The complainant issued a notice dated 13.11.1993, to the accused informing the bouncing of the cheques by the Bank on presentation. In spite of the receipt of the said notice, the accused have not chosen to send any reply nor return the amount. The complaint has been preferred by the power of attorney holder Thiru. Sekar. After taking the complaint on file, notice was issued to the accused and on the appearance of the accused copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and when questioned about the offence, the accused pleaded not guilty. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on the side of the complainant and Ex.P.1 to 9 were marked. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied their complicity with the crime and they have further stated that they have already discharged the entire debt to the complainant. The defendants 1 & 2 were examined on the side of the accused and Ex.D.1 to 6 were marked.

3. C.C.No. 6224 of 1995: According to the complainant in C.C. No.6224/1995, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 116117 dated 16.6.1993 for a sum of Rs.67,600/- and another cheque bearing No. 116168 dated 26.6.1993 for Rs.67,600/- drawn in the name of Bank of India, Kathidral Branch, Chennai, in favour of the complainant. When those two cheques were presented by the complainant in Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Thambu Chetti street, Chennai, they were returned with an endorsement "it exceeds arrangement" on 02.11.1993. The complainant issued notice dated 08.11.1993 to the accused demanding the accused to repay the amount informing the bouncing of the cheques. The said notice was received by the accused on 09.11.1993. But the accused has not chosen to send any reply nor made any arrangements for discharging the debt. The complaint was preferred by the complainant through his power of attorney agent-Sekar. The complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate and on appearance of the accused on summons the learned Judicial Magistrate has furnished copies to the accused and when the accused was questioned he has denied the complicity with the crime. On the side of the complainant P.W.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to 17 were market. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused denied each and every circumstances, but he would say that he has discharged the entire debt due to the complainant. D.W.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the accused and Ex.D.1 to 6 were marked.

4. C.C.No.6225/1995: In the Complaint the complainant would state that the accused owes amount to the complainant in the business transaction entered into between them and in view of the debt, the accused had issued three cheques bearing cheque No.114403 dated 13.5.1993 for Rs.20,000/-, Cheque No. 114404 dated 19.5.1993