Upon proof of cheque dishonour, a presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises, shifting the burden of rebuttal to the accused; furthermore, uncollected statutory notices are deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.2012 passed in CC No.349 of 2012 (Old CC No.1105 of 2011) by the XIX Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The case of the complainant is that they are running business in supplying computer products. The accused No.1 is a firm represented by accused No.2. The complainant supplied computer products worth Rs.7,21,450/- to the accused company and accused No.2 issued two cheques bearing Nos.090014 dated 01.02.2011 and 090015 dated 13.02.2011 for Rs.3,60,755/- each drawn on The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, Pune. On presenting the said cheqeus before the banker, the same were dishonoured for the reason ‘insufficient funds’ and hence, the complainant got issued a statutory notice to the accused. Inspite of receiving the same, the accused failed to pay the amount due under the cheques. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’). However, the trial court, after a full–fledged trial, has acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 17.12.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the complainant.

3. Heard Sri C.S.N. Raju, learned counsel for the appellant-complainant and Sri G. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-accused No.1.

4. The appeal against the respondent No.2-accused No.2 is dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2024 of this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has submitted that the respondent No.1-company (accused No.1) is very much in existence and that they are avoiding payment for the goods supplied by the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant has served statutory notice, but still the accused failed to pay the amounts due to them and that the invoices raised by the accused requesting for supply of goods, would prove that they are due for payment of the amount for the received goods, which discloses that there existed a legally enforceable debt. But, the trial court has erroneously held that the complainant could not prove the existence of legally enforceable debt. He further submitted that the trial court has also committed an error by holding that the notice was not served on the accused though they have filed the proof of service vide Ex.P.11, which was not properly appreciated by the trial court. Learned counsel has raised another discrepancy with regard to the judgment of the trial court that the endorsement made on the invoice Ex.P3 shows the round seal of accused No.1-Di G Waves Solutions P. Ltd., discloses that the company is at Secunderbad and that the consignment was delivered at Hyderabad and due to the said discrepancy, it disbelieved the version of the complainant. But, the mail addressed by the accused No.1 company to the complainant company shows that there is a request made by accused to send the goods to their office at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The said mail is marked as Ex.P15 and that the trial court has failed to appreciate the same. Thus, the trail court could not appreciate the entire evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion and dismissed the complaint.

5.1. He further submitted that the complainant company has already suffered a huge loss due to the acts of the accused and that the accused are playing delay tactics and has developed dishonest intention of cheating the complainant company to cause wrongful loss. He further submitted that the accused No.2 passed away during the pendency of the appeal, but the company i.e. accused No.1 is still carrying on its business and is in active status. However, the counsel for the accused has been evading to app