2018 (9) TMI 926

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was acquitted and hence, this appeal. 3. The appellant/complainant has preferred a private complaint alleging that in connection with the sale of cotton at the instance of the first accused. The second accused issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dated 18.01.2003, HDFC Bank Limited, Trichy Road Branch, Coimbatore and on deposit, the same was returned as stop payment instructed by the respondent herein and after issuing the notice, he filed the private complaint. 4. The suggestive case of the respondent/accused is that the petition filed by the power of attorney is not maintainable. As such, the power of attorney appointed by the Managing Director of the complainant's company is not maintainable-in-law and there is no business transacti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the said Company are in possession of the P.W.1. But, he is not produced the same and hence, the trial Court has drawn the adverse interference in view of admitted factum that their possession especially, in the light of the suggestive case as stated above. 6. Furthermore, even immediately, after the issuance of Ex.P4 legal notice, the respondent has issued a reply notice under Ex.B1 as early as on 10.02.2003 wherein similar fact as projected as a defense case has been duly reflected in the reply notice. However, neither in the complaint nor in the evidence of the P.W.1, the alleged reply of the respondent/accused has been reflected and trial Court has drawn the adverse interference on the attitude of the petitioner. Furthermore, takin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s held that the power deed is not maintainable, in view of the defects in the power deed as noted above. Furthermore, it appears that Ex.P1 power deed is also executed only by the Managing Director and not by the other Directors and hence on both the grounds, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that Ex.P1 Power Deed is defective nature and prosecution launched against the respondent/accused is not maintainable. 8. The respondent/accused has clearly demonstrated his suggestive case that they are engaged only as a collection agent and the representative of the appellant herein gave a cheque for Rs. 1,00,100/- for the collection of Rs. 1,00,000/- for which, the accused has given a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- payable at Coimbatore....