IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.01.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

Criminal Appeal No.501 of 2012

K.R.Narayanasamy

.. Appellant/Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s.Arulmigu Annai Veeramathiamman

Textiles Partnership firm rep. by

its Partner C.Jothiramalingam.

2.Jothiramalingam, partner

4/420, Bharathi Nagar,

Palladam Road, Tiruppur,

Coimbatore District.

.. Respondents/Accused

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Criminal

Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 1.3.2007 made in

C.A.No.308/2006 on the file of Court of Additional District

Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore reversing the judgment dated

28.06.2006 made in C.C.No.829/2003 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore.

For Appellant : No appearance

For Respondent: No appearance

JUDGEMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment

of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1,

Coimbatore dated 01.03.2007 made in C.A.No.308 of 2006 by

which the first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and

conviction made by the Judicial Magistrate, No.V, Coimbatore,

by his judgment dated 28.06.2006 in C.C.No.829 of 2003.

2.The appellant/complainant claimed that, the first

respondent/accused is a partnership firm, wherein the second

respondent/accused is a partner. The appellant/complainant

had business transaction of cotton purchase and sale with the

2^nd respondent. Out of the said business transaction, it is

the claim of the appellant/complainant that, on 02.02.2003

under Invoice No.9, the appellant/complainant supplied cotton

to the respondents/accused for a value of Rs.1,54,530/- and

towards making the payment for the said supply of cotton, the

second respondent/accused issued a cheque to the

appellant/complainant on 28.02.2003 for a sum of Rs.1,54,530/-

drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Chikkanna Chettiar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Street, Tiruppur. The said cheque was presented on 20.03.2003

by the complainant at his bank. However, the same was

returned for the reasons “Exceeds arrangement”. Therefore,

the complainant had given oral intimation about the return of

cheque to the second respondent/accused on 09.04.2003.

Thereafter, based on the instructions given by the second

accused, the appellant/complainant had represented the said

cheque at his bank on 16.06.2003. This time also, the cheque

returned for the reasons “Exceeds arrangement” and this had

been once again intimated to the second respondent/accused on

04.07.2003.

3.It is the further claim of the appellant/complainant

that, inspite of second intimation given after the dishonor of

the cheque second time, the second respondent/accused did not

come forward to make the payment. Therefore, the

appellant/plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.07.2003,

demanding to pay the said amount within the statutory period.

Instead of repaying the said amount, the second

respondent/accused had issued a reply on 12.08.2003, stating a

different version. Thereby, he had not come forward to repay

the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant/appellant had

filed a complaint before the Trial Court for punishing the

respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4.The Trial Court after having considered the case of the

complainant as well as the counter case of the accused, by

appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidences,

has ultimately found that the respondents/accused were guilty

of the offence punishable under 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act and accordingly the Trial Court convicted the first

respondent/accused and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in

respect of the second respondent/accused to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months and also imposed a