These two appeals are filed against the judgment of

acquittal dated 08.07.2010 passed in C.C.No.18361/2003 and

C.C.No.15159/2004 and sought for an order to convict the

respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and

142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and award the

compensation double the value of the subject matter of the

cheque and pass such other orders.

2.

These two appeals are considered together as the

respondents are acquitted before the Trial Court only on the

ground that the complaint filed by the general power of attorney

holder is not just and proper and hence these two matters are

taken up together for common disposal since common question

is involved in the matter.

4

3.

The factual matrix of the case in C.C.No.18361/2003

is that respondent No.1 is a partnership firm represented by its

partners 2 to 5 and all of them are actively participating in the

day-to-day activities of the business since it is a family business.

Accused Nos.2 to 5 approached the complainant for financial

assistance for payment of money to procure Asphalt from M/s.

PEC Ltd., and also for payment to the Commissioner of Central

Excise and Customs, Chennai and to lift the Asphalt stored in the

godown at Chennai. It is contended that the accused have

jointly borrowed money from the complainant from time to time.

In confirmation of the amount so borrowed from the complainant

from time to time plus the interest accrued thereon, accused

Nos.2 and 3 for and on behalf of accused No.1 have jointly

executed an on demand promissory note and consideration

receipt dated 01.07.2002 for an amount of Rs.18,60,000/- in

favour of the complainant with an endorsement <amount taken

from time to time with interest= agreeing to repay the same with

interest at 2% per annum.

In

discharge

of

the

said

outstanding amount, accused No.2 as partner of accused No.1

has issued a cheque dated 01.07.2003 for Rs.18,60,000/- and

the said cheque was returned with an endorsement <account

5

closed= and hence the legal notice was issued and the same was

returned with an endorsement <information delivered on

08.08.2003 3 not claimed=. The notice was also sent through

certificate of posting and the same was received by the accused.

Inspite of the demand, the amount was not paid and hence the

complaint is filed through the power of attorney holder.

4.

In

C.C.No.15159/2004,

the

case

of

the

complainant/appellant herein before the Trial Court is in the

same line of pleading as in C.C.No.18361/2003. It is contended

that in discharge of the outstanding amount, the accused issued

a cheque dated 01.07.2002 for a sum of Rs.30,74,000/- in

favour of the complainant and when the same was presented, it

was returned with an endorsement <account closed= and

thereafter legal notice dated 22.07.2003 was issued through

RPAD and certificate of posting and notice sent through RPAD

was returned with an endorsement <information delivered on

08.08.2003 3 not claimed= and notice sent through certificate of

posting was served and he did not comply with the demand.

Hence, the complaint is filed through power of attorney holder.

6

5.

The relevant documents were placed before the Trial

Court and cognizance was taken and thereafter on behalf of the

complainant in C.C.No.18361/2003, the power of attorney holder

was examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at

Exs.P.1 to 27. The accused also examined himself as D.W.1

and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 50. In

C.C.No.15159/2004, the power of attorney holder was examined

as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 27. The

accused is examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at

Exs.D.1 to 42. The Trial Court after considering the material on

record, raised the common points for consideration: (1)

Whether the complaint filed by the general power of attorney

holder is just and proper (2) Whether the complainant proves

that accused No.2 has issued cheque marked as Ex.P.4 towards

legally recoverable debt? (3) Whether