COMMON JUDGMENT

Initially, the appellant has filed Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.589 and 596 of

2016 and Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.118 and 119 of 2017 against the order of acquittal dated 17.09.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, in C.A.Nos.24, 23, 25 and 26 of 2008, reversing the order of conviction and sentence, dated 15.04.2008, passed in C.C.Nos.21, 12, 281 and 498 of 2006, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, respectively. In view of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of K.Rajalingam Vs. R.Suganthalakshmi reported in 2020 (4) CTC 1 [Crl.A.Nos.89 and 90 of 2020 and Crl.R.C.Nos.494 and 536 of 2019, decided on 28.05.2020], which was further clarified on 16.07.2021, by the Full Bench of this Court, an appeal would lie against the judgment of the Sessions Court, reversing the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. Therefore, this Court on 27.09.2021 directed the Registry to convert the Criminal Revisions as Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, they are converted into Crl.A.(MD)Nos.403 to 406 of 2021.

2.Since the issue involved and the parties in all these criminal appeals are one and the same, all these criminal appeals have been taken up for hearing together and disposed of by virtue of this common judgment. 3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

4.Before the trial Court, the complainant filed four private complaints against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.Nos.21, 12, 281 and 498 of 2006. By judgment dated 15.04.2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in all the cases, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

5.Challenging the same, the accused preferred appeals in C.A.Nos.24, 23, 25 and 26 of 2008 before the Court of Sessions, Karur. The learned Sessions Judge, Karur, by judgment dated 17.09.2010, allowed the appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

6.Aggrieved over the same, the complainant is before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.

7.The case of the complainant is as follows:-

(i) The complainant is doing Handloom and Powerloom business under the name and style of Nagaraj Exports. The accused is also doing Handloom and Powerloom business under the name and style of India Exports. The accused after giving orders for manufacturing of finished goods, used to purchase the same from the complainant on credit basis and thereby, agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the outstanding balance of each transaction. As per the regular accounts maintained by the complainant for the period from 12.03.2005 to 01.08.2005, the accused is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,02,572.10. In order to discharge the said amount, he issued 8 cheques on 21.10.2005, as follows:-

Sl. No.	Date of Issue	Cheque No.	Amount	Cheque Date
1	21.10.2005	050758	40,000/-	21.10.2005
2	21.10.2005	050759	40,000/-	26.10.2005
3	21.10.2005	050760	40,000/-	08.11.2005
4	21.10.2005	050761	40,000/-	11.11.2005
5	21.10.2005	050762	40,000/-	15.11.2005
6	21.10.2005	050763	40,000/-	18.11.2005
7	21.10.2005	050764	40,000/-	22.11.2005
8	21.10.2005	050765	20,000/-	30.11.2005

(ii) The complainant presented the cheques with the State of Bank of India, Siruthozhil Branch, for collection. The cheques were returned / dishonoured for want of funds. Hence, a notice was issued by the complainant. The accused, who received the notice, did not give any reply or did not care to pay the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed four cases on different dates. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, had taken all the four cases on file and questioned the accused in terms of Section 251 Cr.P.C., for which, the accused gave reply, as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document